Introduction A central feature that makes a policy proposal attractive is the extent to which it is seen as a viable solution to perceived problems. UNEPS’ supporters sometimes frame UNEPS in this way by identifying shortcomings in the UN peacekeeping system and presenting UNEPS as a solution.1 This chapter explores attitudes towards the main problem-solving ideas on which the proposed UNEPS is based. It firstly shows there was a tension between those who favoured strengthening the peacekeeping status quo, based on states’ ad-hoc troop contributions, and advocates of a permanent UN standing capacity. The belief that UNEPS would replicate what the UN is already doing in certain areas or that precious resources would be wasted to maintain such a service at high readiness can explain the position of the former. In response to these criticisms, I suggest that framing UNEPS as complementary to a range of UN programmes and activities as well as emphasising the insurmountable limitations of the current standby arrangement system might strengthen the pragmatic credentials of the proposal. I also argue that a proposed UNEPS would probably be expected to be used in multiple sites at the same time, and perform a range of essential activities when not deployed, which might respond to the concerns that UNEPS would become a “white elephant”. The second part of this chapter explores the views of the so-called cosmopolitans on the composition of UNEPS. They supported the proposal partly based on the belief that it would eliminate the time-gap between the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution and the deployment of peacekeepers. There is another tension: this time between those who supported a multidimensional and multifunctional service comprising troops, police and civilians, and those supporting the establishment of a UN security force. Such divergent views raise questions about UNEPS’ composition as well as how the proposal is framed: is it a force or a service? The final section considers the projected size and cost of a UNEPS. While some respondents argue that it would be too small, I maintain that such claims are unpersuasive for a range of reasons. Objections to its proposed size highlight the importance of clarifying UNEPS’ limited mandate and deployment time as

well as the need to devote more attention to assumptions made by UNEPS’ advocates that national armed forces will be available to replace the service after it withdraws. Contention surrounding the proposed cost of the service – namely that it is too high – points to the need to consider alternative funding schemes that do not rely on governments, as well as the possibility of pruning UNEPS’ numbers. This might be a politically astute move to generate the initial support with an eye to increasing its size down the track.