ABSTRACT
The crucial differences in the characteristics of the UN and the alternative model resulted from the centrality of the US commitment to organize and sustain the Multinational Force & Observers (MFO), and the need for the architects of the Sinai force to build a new political-institutional structure. The United Nations has a wider range of countries from which to choose, whose acceptability to the parties is the only limiting factor. Constitutional-political constraints inhibit some—the Nordics, Dutch, Irish, and Japanese, among others—from serving in a multinational force not under UN authority. Financing peacekeeping—finding the money, collecting arrears, determining fair-shares among contributors—has been a critical problem in almost all cases of international peacekeeping. On balance, the MFO system makes for greater financial stability and assures participants that authorized reimbursement will be forthcoming fully and without delay.
