I would offer two perspectives. One, Secretary-General Guterres just announced a few months ago a series of reforms integrating some of the regional desks in peacekeeping. Those are perfectly valid managerial reforms and aren't really going to move the needle in terms of policy. They're useful managerial improvements.
The real reform will come—and I'm repeating myself here—as countries like Holland, Canada, Spain, China and others start contributing more to the tougher end of the UN peacekeeping operations. That will drive a debate, and it will drive policy change about how we need to be organized to support that more effectively.
The management of the UN, the reform of the UN, has lagged behind the challenges we're going to confront in the field, and that won't change until we create that sort of back and forth between countries that are deploying in the field but also have policy weight in New York.
I've raised issues before on the question of how we interpret impartiality, the legal basis for how we're operating in some of these contexts. All of these need to evolve. That's the real policy reform, moving the deck chairs on which department is relating to them. That's fine. The real evolution needs to occur in understanding that we are now in a phase where CT and civil war management are fused, and we have to understand the policy implications of that.