![[CRS Issue Brief for Congress]](iblogo.gif)
APPENDIX U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: A Chronological List
United Nations Peacekeeping: Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions for Calendar Year 1996, as of October 31, 1996
For the United States, major congressional considerations on U.N. peacekeeping stem from executive branch commitments made in the U.N. Security Council. The concern with these commitments, made through votes in the Council, is the extent to which they bind the United States, both militarily and financially, to fund and to participate in some way in an operation. This includes placing U.S. military personnel under the command and control of foreign commanders.
Since 1948, the United Nations (U.N.) has created 42 peacekeeping operations, of which 16 currently exist. U.N. estimates for its peacekeeping expenditures in calendar year 1995 totaled $3.1 billion, with U.S. payments in calendar year 1995 estimated at $411.1 million. Peacekeeping as a technique is no longer just the placement of military forces into a cease-fire situation with the consent of all the parties. A so-called "second gener-ation" of peacekeeping is evolving. Military peacekeepings may be disarming or seizing weapons, aggressively protecting humanitarian assistance, and clearing land mines. Peacekeeping operations also now involve more non-military tasks such as maintaining law and order (police), election monitoring, and human rights monitoring.
Proposals for strengthening U.N. peacekeeping and other aspects of U.N. peace and security capacities have been adopted in the United Nations, by the Clinton Administration, and by Congress. They are being implemented. Most authorities have agreed that if the United Nations is to be responsive to post-Cold War world challenges, both U.N. members and the appropriate U.N. organs will have to continue to improve U.N. structures and procedures in the peace and security area.
The Clinton Administration requested for FY1997 $425 million in assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping from the State Department budget and $70 million in voluntary contributions to international peacekeeping in the foreign operations budget. Congress provided $352.4 million for assessed contributions and $65 million for voluntary contributions.
The role of the United Nations in facilitating dispute settlement and establishing peacekeeping operations to monitor cease-fires and participate in other duties as assigned by the U.N. Security Council increased markedly in the late 1980s. Between mid-1988 and December 20, 1996, a total of 28 peacekeeping operations have been set up, with 11 of those still in existence (see CRS Report 94-193 for information on these operations and for a timeline chart on operations per year). The Council set up six operations in 1993, two in 1994, four in 1995, and three in 1996. If the situations at the start of 1988 and the end of 1995 are compared, the following picture emerges:
The Administration, in its March 19, 1996 budget to Congress, requested a total of $495 million for funding peacekeeping. This included $425 million for FY1997, requested in the State Department's Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account to pay U.S. contributions to the U.N.'s assessed peacekeeping accounts. The $425 million was broken down into $282.6 million for 13 operations, including $9.1 million for the two war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not peacekeeping operations, and $142.4 million in FY1997 payment of prior year arrears to five operations. The $142.4 million in FY1997 was to be the first payment in a fiveyear plan to make the United States current in its contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts. The Administration proposed that, over the FY1997-FY2001 period, Congress appropriate $742.4 million for payments for peacekeeping arrears contingent on U.N. achievement of as yet unspecified reform measures.
The FY1997 request was at an assessment level of 25%, per Section 404 (b)(2), P.L. 103- 236, rather than 30.96% assessed by the U.N. for CY1996. The scale of assessments for U.N. peacekeeping accounts is based on a modification of the scale for U.N. regular budget contributions, with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council assessed at a higher level than for the regular budget. Since 1992, U.S. policy has been to seek a U.N. General Assembly decision to reduce the U.S. peacekeeping assessment to the regular budget assessment of 25%, meaning other countries' assessments would have to increase. Instead, because of regular budget assessment changes for Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the U.S. peacekeeping assessment (with that of China, France, and the United Kingdom) rose. The Administration, however, recognized only 30.4% and, by congressional requirement, since October 1, 1995, U.S. peacekeeping contributions have been limited to 25%. Negotiations to change the system of assessments for financing U.N. peacekeeping continue. This limit on U.S. payments adds to the U.S. arrearage on peacekeeping contributions.
In addition, $70 million was requested in voluntary contributions in FY1997 to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO), an account under the Military Assistance account of the Foreign Operations Act. The Administration proposed to use this account to finance the U.S. contribution to the Multilateral Force and Observers in the Sinai (MFO), a non-U.N. peacekeeping operation, and for U.S. support of regional and international peacekeeping efforts in Africa, Haiti, and Europe, including sanctions assistance monitoring.
Congress provided $352.4 million for U.S. assessments to U.N. peacekeeping accounts in H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY1997. This included $50 million for U.S. peacekeeping arrears accumulated in 1995. Release of the arrears funding depends on an Administration certification that two of the following three U.N. non-peacekeeping-related actions occur: (1) savings of $100 million in biennial expenses of five U.N. divisions or activities; (2) reduction in the number of U.N. professional and general service staff at December 31, 1997 by at least 10% of the number employed on January 1, 1996; (3) adoption of a regular budget outline for 1998-1999 lower than the current U.N. regular budget level of $2.608 billion. In addition, conferees expected that up to $20 million in the account would be available for contingencies related to African crises, especially Burundi. Use of these funds in this way was subject to regular Committee review procedures.
Furthermore, none of the funds in the CIPA account shall be spent for any new or expanded U.N. peacekeeping mission unless the appropriate committees are notified, at least 15 days before a U.N. Security Council vote. The notification should provide the estimated cost, length of mission, and planned exit strategy. A reprogramming of funds is to be submitted, including the source of funds for the mission and a certification that American manufacturers and suppliers are given opportunities equal to those given to foreign sources to provide equipment, services, and materials for U.N. peacekeeping activities.
Congress appropriated $65 million for the PKO account, but stipulated that none of the funds shall be obligated or expended, except as provided through regular notification procedures of the Appropriations committees.
Table 1 shows the FY1996 appropriation and FY1997 request. (Table 3 shows FY1988-FY1996 data.) On September 23, 1996, the United States paid the U.N. $195 million, the last of FY1996 funds available from the CIPA account, for peacekeeping assessments.
United Nations peacekeeping might be defined as the placement of military personnel or forces in a country or countries to perform basically non-military functions in an impartial manner. These functions might include supervision of a cessation of hostilities agreement or truce, observation or presence, interposition between opposing forces as a buffer force, maintenance and patrol of a border, or removal of arms in the area. The U.N. Security Council normally establishes peacekeeping operations in keeping with certain basic principles, which include: agreement and continuing support by the Security Council; agreement by the parties to the conflict and consent of the host government(s); unrestricted access and freedom of movement by the operation within the countries of operation and within the parameters of its mandate; provision of personnel on a voluntary basis by U.N. members; noninterference by the operation and its participants in the internal affairs of the host government; and avoidance of the use of armed force to carry out the mandate.
Since 1948, the United Nations has established 42 peacekeeping operations, 16 of which currently exist. Between 1991 and 1996, the rate of creation of operations followed this pattern (five in 1991, four in 1992, six in 1993, two in 1994, four in 1995, and three in 1996) which shows an increase and subsequent slowdown in creation as the Council sought to ensure that peacekeeping was appropriate for the crisis. Only one of the four new operations in 1995 was actually new, as the Council restructured operations in the former Yugoslavia. In early 1996, the International Police Task Force (IPTF) in Bosnia was incorporated into the U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), along with other non-peacekeeping elements. (For further information, see Appendix and CRS Reports 90-96, United Nations Peacekeeping: Historical Overview and Current Issues and 94-193, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations 1988-1993: Background Information.)
U.N. peacekeeping operations take the form of both peacekeeping forces, such as the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and observer missions, such as the U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Mission (UNIIMOG) and the U.N. Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA). The differences between observer missions and peacekeeping forces are found in the mandate or function of the operation, the numbers and types of personnel used, and whether the personnel are armed. Usually, peacekeeping forces are larger in personnel, equipment, and cost than observer missions and are lightly armed rather than unarmed, as are observers.
Section 7 of the U.N. Participation Act (UNPA) of 1945, as amended (P.L. 79-264), authorized the President to detail up to 1,000 members of the U.S. armed forces to the United Nations in a noncombatant capacity. Over the history of the United Nations, the United States has provided various goods and services, including logistics, and has detailed its military to U.N. peacekeeping tasks, but in small numbers. Before 1990, the major U.S. provision of forces were the individual U.S. military officers participating as observers in the UNTSO. The President has also used the authority in section 628 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, to provide U.S. armed forces personnel to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Under this section, such personnel may be detailed or sent to provide "technical, scientific or professional advice or service" to any international organization.
As of November 30, 1996, an estimated 759 U.S. personnel served under U.N. control in eight operations. Other than the civilian police in UNTAES and UNMIBH, these were U.S. military personnel. See Table 2.
A MASH (Mobile Army Surgical Hospital) unit that was originally deployed from Germany to Zagreb as medical support to UNPROFOR/UNCRO was withdrawn in December 1995. This was the first entire U.S. unit provided to serve under U.N. command (the MASH unit became operational in November 1992). On July 12, 1993, 305 U.S. soldiers arrived in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to serve with a preventive deployment component of UNPREDEP. They are there to observe and report on activities in the country and on its borders with Albania and with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), with the goal of deterring the spillover of conflict. The U.S. unit conducts missions as directed by the U.N. commander, who, is from Sweden. A Nordic battalion from Finland, Sweden, and Norway is also there.
A Peacekeeping Response to International Humanitarian Distress. Since 1991, internal instabilities and disasters in the Persian Gulf region and in Africa, and conditions in the former Yugoslavia have prompted demands for the use of U.N. peacekeeping to expedite peaceful settlement in internal conflict situations or to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance to starving and homeless populations within their countries. Some observers have suggested that the principle of nonintervention, incorporated in Article 2, paragraph 7 of the U.N. Charter, had been modified by Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), in which the Council "insist(ed) that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq." Others cited Council Resolution 687 (1991), the ceasefire resolution, which imposed on Iraq a number of requirements that might be viewed as intervention into the territorial sovereignty and independence of that country.
While the Security Council had, in the past, been reluctant to approve humanitarian assistance as the major or primary function of a peacekeeping operation, it has now moved away from that position. The Council established protection for humanitarian operations in Somalia as part of the major mandate for its operation there (UNOSOM) and added humanitarian protection to an expanded mandate for the operation (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On December 3, 1992, the Security Council took unprecedented action, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, in authorizing the Secretary-General and Member States cooperating "to use all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia." The result was the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), a U.N.-authorized operation under a U.S.-led unified command. This was not a U.N. peacekeeping operation, but cooperated with the U.N. operation in Somalia (UNOSOM). UNITAF ended on May 4, 1993.
An alternative approach used by the U.N. Secretary-General is the provision of U.N. security guards to protect the camps run by the United Nations and its various agencies in northern Iraq. This deployment of a U.N. Guard Contingent within Iraq was governed by an agreement between the U.N. Relief Coordinator in Iraq and Iraq's Foreign Minister. The U.N. Guard Contingent is not a U.N. peacekeeping operation. U.N. security personnel guard the property and buildings of the United Nations throughout the system.
The Role of U.N. Peacekeeping in Monitoring Elections. With increasing frequency, some authorities have called for the United Nations to supervise and monitor elections in various countries. In the past, the United Nations had not responded affirmatively to such requests. In fact, in June 1989 Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, when considering Nicaragua's request for U.N. participation in its electoral process, characterized U.N. acceptance of election supervision in an independent country as "unprecedented."
However, recent examples exist of such U.N. election supervision, with a U.N. peacekeeping component to ensure security, authorized and established by the U.N. Security Council. In the case of Namibia (UNTAG, 1989-1990), Western Sahara (MINURSO, 1991-), and Cambodia (UNTAC, 1992-1994), the election is an act of selfdetermination, as part of an overall conflict settlement arrangement. This referendum or election is similar to the traditional role of the U.N. in the decolonization process.
In two other instances, the U.N. took on elections monitoring in an independent U.N. member state. In both cases, the action was authorized and created by the U.N. General Assembly, not by the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. Observer Mission in Nicaragua (ONUVEN) involved U.N. civilian observers monitoring the election process in Nicaragua in 1989-1990 and did not include military or security forces. It was, however, part of the efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement in Central America. The case of election monitoring in Haiti in 1990-1991 did not include a role clearly identified as U.N. peacekeeping, but the United Nations Observer Group for the Verification of the Elections in Haiti (ONUVEH) included a security component that consisted of 64 security observers, 36 of whom were drawn from U.N. peacekeeping operations.
There are three major ways by which U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations have been funded. First, Congress currently finances U.S. contributions to these operations through the Department of State authorization and appropriation bills (under Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) in the International Organizations and Conferences account). These are the peacekeeping operations for which the U.N. General Assembly creates a separate assessed account against which every U.N. member state is obligated to pay a specific% of the expenses of the operation. Arrearages to peacekeeping operations exist only in connection with these assessed accounts.
Second, Congress formerly funded one U.N. operation -- the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) -- from the foreign operations authorization and appropriation bills (under Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) in the Military Assistance account). The U.S. contribution was funded this way because the Cyprus force was financed from voluntary contributions from U.N. member nations. On May 27, 1993, the Security Council changed the basis of funding for the force on Cyprus, from solely voluntary to voluntary plus assessed. Future funding for U.S. contributions to UNFICYP has moved, in the Administration's request, from the Foreign Operations, Military Assistance, peacekeeping account to the State Department, Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities account. Finally, Congress funds the U.S. contribution to some U.N. observer peacekeeping operations as part of its regular budget payment to the United Nations. There is no separate U.N.-assessed account for these groups. This is currently how the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) are funded.
Since U.N. peacekeeping requirements may arise out of sequence with the U.S. budget planning cycle, the President and Congress have had to devise extraordinary methods for acquiring initial funding for U.S. contributions to the operations. Over the past several years, these included reprogramming from other pieces of the international affairs budget, such as Economic Support Fund money obligated in past years for specific countries but not disbursed. Another approach used was the transfer of funds to the international affairs budget from the Department of Defense for funding U.N. peacekeeping operations.
In addition, in 1994 and 1995, President Clinton proposed that U.S. assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations, for which Chapter VII of the Charter is specifically cited in the authorizing Security Council resolution, be financed under the Defense Department authorization/appropriations bills. He proposed that the U.S. assessed contribution for any other U.N. peacekeeping operations for which a large U.S. combat contingent is present also be financed from Defense Department money. Congress did not support this proposal.
As peacekeeping has become an option of choice in seeking a response to conflict situations in the post-Cold War world, proposals have been made for strengthening all aspects of this peace and security phenomenon. Within the United Nations, the report issued on June 17, 1992, by U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace; Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping," served as a focal point for debate. The report was prepared in response to a request by the January 31, 1992 summit-level meeting of the U.N. Security Council. While Boutros-Ghali discussed four broad issue areas -- preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and postconflict peace-building -- and the steps U.N. members might take to strengthen the U.N.'s peace and security capacities, he offered several recommendations relating to military force, peace enforcement, and peacekeeping, which might be summarized as follows.
On May 28, 1993, the Security Council completed its initial review of Agenda for Peace, issuing a statement on the role of the United Nations in the peace and security area, the use of peacekeeping and other tools identified in the June 1992 report and asking the Secretary-General to report in the areas of structure of the Secretariat for improved planning and management for peacekeeping and measures necessary to ensure a "solid and durable financial basis" for peacekeeping. (U.N. document S/25859). On March 14, 1994, the Secretary-General sent the Council his report on "Improving the Capacity of the United Nations for Peace-keeping" (U.N. document A/48/403; S/26450), in which he suggested steps member states may take to improve U.N. peacekeeping and actions he has taken or proposed to take to strengthen the Secretariat for peacekeeping. His report also proposed (a) a modification of the budget process for ongoing missions with some stability of operation and (b) an increase in the Peacekeeping Reserve Fund from $150 million to $800 million in size. On May 3, 1994, the President of the Council, on behalf of the Council, issued a statement responding to the March report (U.N. document S/PRST/1994/22).
The Clinton Administration initially supported collective security through the U.N. as a centerpiece among its foreign policy objectives. Later, President Clinton addressed some problems for U.N. peacekeeping in his September 1993 speech to the U.N. General Assembly. He called on the Security Council to review closely each proposal for an operation before determining whether to establish it, saying that "the United Nations simply cannot become engaged in every one of the world's conflicts." He supported "creation of a genuine U.N. peacekeeping headquarters with a planning staff, with access to timely intelligence , with a logistics unit that can be deployed on a moment's notice, and a modern operations center with global communications." And, Clinton urged that U.N. operations be adequately and fairly funded, saying he was "committed to work with the United Nations" in reducing the U.S. assessment for peacekeeping (for the text, see appendix to CRS Report 93-951). On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 on Reforming Peace Operations. The policy recommended 11 steps to strengthen U.N. management of peacekeeping operations and offered U.S. support for strengthening the planning, logistics, information, and command and control capabilities of the United Nations. The policy also supports reducing the U.S. peacekeeping assessment from 31.7% to 25% by January 1, 1996. (See CRS Report 94-260 for discussion and text of unclassified paper.)
President George Bush, in addressing the Assembly in September 1992, had presented both a policy and actions response to the Secretary-General's report. President Bush noted that he had directed the Secretary of Defense to "place a new emphasis on peacekeeping." This included "training of combat, engineering and logistical units," working with the United Nations to "best employ our considerable lift, logistics, communications and intelligence capabilities to support peacekeeping operations;" and offering our "capabilities for joint simulations and exercises." He "directed the establishment of a permanent peacekeeping curriculum in U.S. military schools" and offered U.S. "bases and facilities for multinational training and field exercises," citing Fort Dix as an example. Finally, Bush said the U.S. would "review how we fund peacekeeping and explore new ways to ensure adequate American financial support for U.N. peacekeeping and U.N. humanitarian activities." His policy points urging "concrete responses (by U.N. members) in five key areas" may be found in his speech in U.S. Department of State Dispatch, September 28, 1992: 722-723.
Congress demonstrated its support for U.N. peacekeeping in a number of ways during 1991 and 1992. U.S. contributions for the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission were appropriated (P.L. 102-55). Funds for U.S. contributions for U.N. peacekeeping operations and also for the portion of U.S. arrearages to be paid from FY1992 money were authorized and appropriated in 1991 (P.L. 102-138; P.L. 102-140) and additional funds were made available in 1992 for the rapidly increasing number of peacekeeping operations (P.L. 102-266; P.L. 102-311; P.L. 102-368; and P.L. 102-395). This funding was important as demands for new U.N. actions worldwide increased.
During 1992, some in Congress focussed on finding new sources of funding for U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping obligations while others explored new directions for the United Nations in the area of peace and security. Senator Simon's bill, for example, suggested that the United States finance its peacekeeping contributions from the defense budget function, as a larger and more reliable source. Proponents of this proposal pointed to the extent to which U.N. peacekeeping advances U.S. national security interests. Section 1342 of the Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 102-484, authorized the Secretary of Defense to obligate up to $300 million from defense appropriations to, among other things, fund U.S. peacekeeping contributions if the funding is not available from the State Department's CIPA account. Congress, in P.L. 102-484, asked the President for a report on the proposals made in "An Agenda for Peace". President Bush sent that report to Congress on January 19, 1993.
In 1993, in contrast with the recent past, Congress did not provide all the funding requested by the President for financing U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. In 1993, Congress appropriated $401.6 million of the $619.7 million requested in the CIPA account in the State Department Appropriations Act, FY1994 (H.R. 2519, P.L. 103-121, October 27, 1993). The Foreign Operations Act included $75,623,000 of the $77,166,000 requested for Peacekeeping Operations under the Military Assistance account (H.R. 2295, P.L. 103-87, September 3, 1993). Finally, Congress did not appropriate the $300 million requested in the Department of Defense budget for DOD peacekeeping support.
Further, Congress' concerns in this area were expressed in a series of requirements included in the conference report on State Department appropriations. They included:
In 1994, the State Department appropriations bill (H.R. 4603; P.L. 103-317, August 26, 1994), included the requested $533.3 million in the FY1995 CIPA account and $670 million for the FY1994 CIPA supplemental appropriations. The foreign operations appropriations legislation (H.R. 4426; P.L. 103-306, August 23, 1994) also contained the requested $75 million for peacekeeping and peace support and a provision allowing a transfer of $850,000 to IMET for training of other countries' troops for U.N. peacekeeping duty. The FY1995 National Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 4301) and the FY1995 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4650) were enacted without the $300 million requested to finance U.S. assessed contributions to three U.N. operations.
The Administration, in February 1995, requested a total of $1.3 billion for funding peacekeeping. This included $445 million for FY1996 and a FY1995 emergency supplemental request of $672 million, all in the State Department's CIPA account. In addition, $100 million was requested in voluntary contributions in FY1996 to the PKO account in the Foreign Operations Act for non-U.N. peacekeeping activities. Finally, the Administration proposed that part ($65 million) of the U.S. assessed contributions to two U.N. peacekeeping operations in which U.S. military personnel participated, Haiti (UNMIH) and Macedonia (UNPREDEP), be funded from Defense Department appropriations. In 1996, Congress appropriated a total of $429 million for peacekeeping in FY1996, including $359 million for U.S. contributions to U.N. assessed accounts (CIPA -- P.L. 104-341, H.R. 3019, April 26, 1996) and $70 million for the PKO account (P.L. 104-107, H.R. 1868, February 12, 1996). Congress rejected the request for the $672 million supplemental and the payment of assessed contributions from DOD funds.
P.L. 104-134, H.R. 3019
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Included State
Department Appropriations Act of 1996. Conference report H.Rept. 104-134; passed
House, Senate, April 25, 1996; signed into law April 26, 1996.
P.L. 104-208, H.R. 3610
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997. Includes Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 and Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1997. Conference report (H.Rept. 104-863) passed House September 28, 1996; passed
Senate September 30, 1996; signed into law September 30, 1996.
H.R. 3540 (Callahan)
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill,
FY1997. Recommended $65 million for PKO account. Reported from House
Appropriations Committee, May 29, 1996 (H.Rept. 104-600); passed House, June 11.
Reported from Senate Appropriations Committee, June 27, 1996 (S.Rept. 104-295);
passed Senate, July 26, 1996.
H.R. 3814 (Rogers)
State Department Appropriations, FY1997. Reported from House Appropriations
Committee, July 17, 1996 (H.Rept. 104-676); passed House, July 24, 1996. Reported
from Senate Appropriations Committee, August 27, 1996 (S.Rept. 104-353).