We have pushed very strongly in Canada for a transition to a UN mission for a number of reasons. There are simple economies of scale that will be brought about by consolidating all the international peace operations' efforts inside Sudan under one chain of command, one logistical supply chain, and one common set of equipment, training, and standards for conducting these types of operations.
The UN has a lot more experience than the African Union in managing the complexity, the size, and the integration of civilian, military, and police efforts in a mission of this scale. Simply with an increase in expertise, we are hoping, and I think quite justifiably, for an increase in the effectiveness and performance of the troops on the ground.
It's also a very large area. We use, in many of our briefing notes, the comparison that Darfur is the size of France, but without any of the infrastructure that you would have in France in terms of your ability to move around by road to access different areas. By increasing the total number of troops, which the UN resolution will allow us to do, we're going to get better coverage of the Darfurian territories.
We will also put the whole force on a more sound financial footing. UN peacekeeping operations are funded through the assessed scale of contributions that all UN members pay for. It means that there can be an effective planning, forward provisioning, and solidity to the force that is provided by a constant flow of financial resources. That's not the case when you're dealing with an African Union force, which is funded by voluntary contributions.
At the moment, because we know it doesn't have any longevity, there will be a transition. So it's increasingly more difficult to actually plan for the financial expenditures needed to keep the force on the ground.
So it will help in a number of different areas.