|
||
|
|
|
|||| The
Policies of Mercy: UN Coordination in Afghanistan, Mozambique, and Rwanda |
|
| text (pdf) | order info | |
| INFO |
|
|
|
| ABSTRACT |
|
| This study identifies the challenges of coordination (both among humanitarian agencies and between humanitarian and political actors), presents three country case studies, and identifies conclusions and lessons for the future. Its author, a senior UN secretariat member on leave for purposes of this research at Brown University, writes in his personal capacity about humanitarian operations with which he is intimately familiar. | |
|
The study presents a typology involving a spectrum of approaches to coordination, ranging from coordination by command through coordination by consensus to coordination by default. "Command" is not at the moment a realistic possibility for the UN system, the monograph concludes, but the experience reviewed points toward the need for more clearly deputized UN coordinating authority, separated, on the one hand, from the UN's operational humanitarian organizations and, on the other, from its political and peacekeeping activities. The lesson of all three cases is "perhaps that more rather than less coordination is required" among humanitarian actors. (122)
|
|
| KEYWORDS |
|
|
Humanitarian principles, humanitarian space, human rights, warfare, genocide, peacekeeping, sovereignty, international military forces, coordination, institutional cultures, consolidated appeal process, funding, local institutions, civil society, bilateralism, relief-to-development continuum, reconstruction, quick impact projects, politicization, advocacy, professionalism; Afghanistan, Pakistan, Rwanda, Zaire, France, U.S.; UN, UN Security Council, ECOSOC, IASC, UNDPA, UNDPKO, DHA, UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, WFP, WHO, IBRD, UNOCA, UNOCHA, UNV, OAU, UNOMOZ, UNSCERO. UNOHAC, UNREO, Operation Turquoise, UNAMIR, NGOs, the Red Cross Movement.
|
|
||||
|
-brown university | the
watson institute - -Tufts University | Feinstein International Famine Center - |
||||
|
|