Order Code RL33700
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
United Nations Peacekeeping:
Issues for Congress
October 17, 2006
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

United Nations Peacekeeping:
Issues for Congress
Summary
A major issue facing the United Nations, the United States, and Congress is the
extent to which the United Nations has the capacity to restore or keep the peace in
the changing world environment. Associated with this issue is the expressed need
for a reliable source of funding and other resources for peacekeeping and improved
efficiencies of operation.
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 to fund and to participate in some way in an
operation. This includes placing U.S. military personnel under the control of foreign
commanders.
Peacekeeping has come to constitute more than just the placement of military
forces into a cease-fire situation with the consent of all the parties. Military
peacekeepers may be disarming or seizing weapons, aggressively protecting
humanitarian assistance, and clearing land mines. Peacekeeping operations also now
involve more non-military personnel and tasks such as maintaining law and order,
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 U.S.
executive branch, and by Congress. Some are being implemented. Most authorities
have agreed that if the United Nations is to be responsive to 21st century world
challenges, both U.N. member states and the appropriate U.N. organs will have to
continue to improve U.N. structures and procedures in the peace and security area.
This report, which serves as a tracking report for action by Congress on United
Nations peacekeeping, replaces CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations
Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by Marjorie Ann Browne.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Funding Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Peacekeeping Assessment Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Notifications to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Basic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U.S. Provision of Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Other Peacekeeping Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A Peacekeeping Response to International Humanitarian Distress . . . . 9
The Role of U.N. Peacekeeping in Monitoring Elections . . . . . . . . . . 10
U.S. Financing for U.N. Peacekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.N. Proposals for Strengthening Peacekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The United States and Peacekeeping Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Congress and United Nations Peacekeeping: 1991-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. U.N. Peacekeeping Assessment Levelsfor the United States,
Calendar Years 1992-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. U.N. Peacekeeping-Assessed Contributions
FY2005 Allocations and FY2006 and FY2007 Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. U.S. Military Personnel under U.N. ControlAs of November 30,
1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. U.S. Personnel under U.N. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping as Requested and
Enacted, FY1988-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix 1. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: A Chronological List . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix 2. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations Numbers Created Annually:
1948-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix 3. United Nations Peacekeeping over the Years Statistical
Data for Comparative Analysis1978-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix 4. U.N. Peacekeeping: Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions . . . . . 33
Appendix 5. U.N. Peacekeeping: Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions . . . . . 36

---

United Nations Peacekeeping:
Issues for Congress
Most Recent Developments
On June 15, 2006, President Bush signed P.L. 109-234, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006, including $129.8 million for the Contributions to
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account for payment in FY2006 of U.S.
contributions to assessed U.N. peacekeeping operations. On June 20, 2006, the House
passed H.R. 5672, the State Department Appropriations Act, 2007, including the
requested $1,135,327,000 for the CIPA account. Pending before the Senate is H.R.
5522, to fund both Foreign Operations and State Department Appropriations for
FY2007, including the requested funding for the CIPA account and $97,925,000 for
the PKO account. On October 5, 2006, Congress presented to the President for
signature H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007, without a provision adopted by the Senate that would set the U.N.
peacekeeping assessment cap at 27.1% for CY2005-CY2007.
Introduction
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 1990s. Between
April 1988 and April 1994, a total of 20 peacekeeping operations were set up,
involving 16 different situations. Since May 1994, however, the pace of Council
creation of new U.N. controlled peacekeeping operations dropped noticeably. This
reduction resulted, in part, from the U.S. decision, in Presidential Decision Directive
25 (PDD 25), signed May 1994, to follow strict criteria for determining its support
for an operation. (See text at [http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm]). This U.S.
decision was accompanied by a Security Council statement adopting similar criteria.
If the trends between 1978 and 2006 (see Appendix 3) and situations at the start
of 1988 and in more recent years are compared, the following trends emerge:
! Numbers of Operations: As of the end of 1978, six U.N.
peacekeeping operations existed. No operations were created
between the start of UNIFIL in March 1978 and April 1988. The
number of operations increased from 8 in 1970 to 17 in 1993 and
1994, 16 in 1995 and 1996, and 17 again in 1999. Since 2000, the
number of operations as of the end of the year has fluctuated
between 15 and 16.

---

CRS-2
! U.N. Costs: For calendar year 1978, U.N. peacekeeping
expenditures totaled $202 million and were up to $635 million for
1989. This went up to $1.7 billion for 1992 and to $3 billion
annually for 1993, 1994, and 1995. The total for 1996 went down
to $1.4 billion and below $1 billion for 1998. Since 2000, U.N.
peacekeeping costs were, annually, over $2 billion, reaching $3.6
billion in 2004 and $4.7 billion for 2005.
! U.N. Personnel: As of December 31, 1978, personnel in U.N.
peacekeeping operations totaled 16,700. The highest number during
1993 was 78,500, but the total was down to 68,900 in 1995. In
1996, the highest number was down to 29,100 and 14,600 in 1998.
For 2000, the highest number was 38,500 and climbing. For 2004,
64,700 was the highest number and at the end of 2005, the number
in U.N. peacekeeping operations totaled 70,103.
! U.S. contributions for assessed peacekeeping accounts: For
CY1988, U.S. assessed contributions totaled $36.7 million. CY1994
U.S. payments to U.N. peacekeeping accounts were $991.4 million;
and $359 million in CY1996. U.S. assessed contributions totaled
$518.6 million in CY2000 but were up to $1.3 billion, including
arrears payments, in CY2001. U.S. contributions were $703.4
million in CY2003 and $1.1 billion in CY2005.
! U.S. Personnel in U.N. Peacekeeping: When 1988 started, the U.S.
military participated, as observers, in one U.N. operation, the U.N.
Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (36 officers). As of
December 31, 1995, a total of 2,851 U.S. military personnel served
under U.N. control in seven operations. As of December 31, 2003,
518 U.S. personnel served in seven operations and as of the end of
2004, 429 U.S. personnel served in seven operations. As of
September 30, 2006, 335 U.S. personnel served in eight operations.
Current Funding Situation
On February 6, 2006, the Bush Administration requested, in its FY2007 budget,
$1,135,327,000 to pay U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations
in the State Department’s Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA) account. The CIPA request includes $44,303,000 for the two war crimes
tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not peacekeeping operations. Bush also
requested $200,500,000 in voluntary contributions for the FY2007 Peacekeeping
Operations (PKO) account under the Foreign Operations Act. This account would
finance the U.S. contribution to the Multilateral Force and Observers in the Sinai
(MFO), a non-U.N. peacekeeping operation, and U.S. support of regional and
international peacekeeping efforts in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

---

CRS-3
On June 9, 2006, the House, in H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Act,
proposed $170 million in the FY2007 PKO account. On June 20, 2006, the House,
in the State Department Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 5672), agreed to the
requested $1,135,327,000 for the CIPA account. On the same day, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended, in H.R. 5522, appropriations for the State
Department and for Foreign Operations, the amount requested for CIPA and
$97,925,000 for the PKO account.1 This bill remains pending on the Senate calendar.
On February 16, 2006, President Bush requested, in a FY2006 supplemental, an
additional $69.8 million for CIPA and $123 million for PKO, provided that such
sums [of the PKO funds] as may be necessary may be transferred to and merged with
CIPA for peacekeeping operations in Sudan. On June 15, 2006, Congress sent to the
President H.R. 4939, providing $129.8 million for the CIPA account and $178
million for the PKO account. 2
The Peacekeeping Assessment Cap
United States U.N. peacekeeping requests were funded during FY1997 through
FY2001 at an assessment level of 25%, in accordance with Section 404 (b)(2), P.L.
103-236, rather than at the level assessed by the United Nations. The scale of
assessments for U.N. peacekeeping is based on a modification of the U.N. regular
budget scale, with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members assessed at a
higher level than they are for the U.N. regular budget. Since 1992, U.S. policy was
to seek a U.N. General Assembly reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping assessment to
25%, meaning an increase of other countries’ assessments. Since October 1, 1995,
based on congressional requirements, U.S. peacekeeping payments had been limited
to 25%. This limit, or cap, on U.S. payments added to U.S. arrearages for U.N.
peacekeeping accounts.
1 S. Rept. 109-277.
2 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006, H.R. 4939, P.L. 109-234, signed June 15, 2006.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. U.N. Peacekeeping Assessment Levels
for the United States, Calendar Years 1992-2006
U.N.
Recognized by
U.N.
Recognized by
Year
Year
Assessment
U.S.
Assessment
U.S.
1992
30.387%
30.4% 1999
30.3648%
25%
(30.4%)
(30.4%)
1993
31.739%
30.4% 2000
30.2816%
25%
(31.7%)
(30.3%)
1994
31.735%
30.4% 2001
28.134% 25% // 28.15% *
(31.7%)
(28.13%)
1995
31.151%
30.4%; Oct. 1: 2002
27.3477%
27.90%
(31.2%)
25%
(27.35%)
1996
30.965%
25% 2003
26.927%
27.40%
(30.9%)
(26.93%)
1997
30.862%
25% 2004
26.690%
27.40%
(30.9%)
(26.69%)
1998
30.5324%
25% 2005
26.4987%
27.1%
(30.5%)
(26.5%)
2006
26.6901%
25%
(26.7%)
* The cap changed during 2001. See paragraph below.
In December 2000, the U.N. General Assembly reduced the U.S. regular budget
assessment level to 22%, effective January 1, 2001, and, in effect, reduced the U.S.
assessment for peacekeeping contributions progressively to 25%. Then U.N.
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke in testimony in January 2001, stated that “The U.S.
rate will continue to progressively decline, and we expect that it will reach 25% by
roughly 2006 or 2007.”3 In response, Congress passed S. 248, which amended the
1999 enacted legislation authorizing payment of U.S. arrears on its contributions to
the United Nations, once certain conditions had been met. One of the conditions
required Assembly reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping assessment level to 25%. S.
248 (P.L. 107-46, signed October 5, 2001) changed that condition figure to 28.15%.
In 2002, in Section 402, of P.L. 107-228, Congress raised the 25% cap for
peacekeeping payments that had been set by P.L. 103-236 to a range of 28.15% for
Calendar Year (CY) 2001 to 27.4% for CY2003 and CY2004. Table 1 under
“Recognized by U.S.” reflects these changes. This would enable current U.S.
peacekeeping assessments to be paid in full. Section 411 of Division B of P.L. 108-
447, signed December 8, 2004, continued the increased cap for assessments made
during CY2005 to 27.1%.
However, FY2006 legislation did not include a provision on the cap, which
returned to 25% for assessments in CY2006. The Senate on April 6, 2005, had
3 Holbrooke, Richard C. Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations. Statement for the Record, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, January 9,
2001. U.S. Mission to the United Nations, at http://www.un.int/usa/01hol019.htm.

---

CRS-5
accepted an amendment in S. 600, FY2006-2007 Foreign Relations Authorization,
that would drop the assessment cap limitation changes, returning the cap to 25%.
The Foreign Relations Committee, in S.Rept. 109-35, had recommended a permanent
change to 27.1%. The Senate did not complete action on S. 600. On December 13,
2005, Senator Biden introduced S. 2095 that would set the cap for assessments made
for CY2005 and CY2006 at 27.1%.
The President’s February 6, 2006 budget request included legislative language
that would set the cap at 27.1% for assessments made during CYs 2005, 2006, 2007,
and 2008. On June 22, 2006, the Senate passed S. 2766, the Defense Authorization
Act for FY2007, including an amendment by Senator Biden that would set the cap
for U.S. contributions at 27.10% for assessments made for U.N. peacekeeping
operations for CYs 2005, 2006, and 2007. This provision was dropped during
conference consideration of H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, that was presented to the President on
October 5, 2006, for his signature.4
Notifications to Congress
Since 1997, pursuant to a provision in the State Department Appropriations Act,
1997, P.L. 104-208 (Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997), Congress has
required the Secretary of State to notify it 15 days before U.S. support of a U.N.
Security Council resolution setting up a new or expanding a current peacekeeping
operation. The notification is to include “the estimated cost and length of the
mission, the vital national interest that will be served, and the planned exit strategy.”
A reprogramming request, indicating the source of funding for the operation, is also
required. Tradition has sometimes resulted in a committee or subcommittee
chairman “placing a hold” on the proposed reallocation in the reprogramming
request, if it is not acceptable to him or her.
Table 2 shows FY2005 allocations, the FY2006 request and appropriation
estimates, and the FY2007 request. (Table 5 shows FY1988-FY2005 data.)
Table 2. U.N. Peacekeeping-Assessed Contributions
FY2005 Allocations and FY2006 and FY2007 Requests
(in millions of $)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
Operation
Allocations
Request
Estimates
Request
UNDOF (Israel-Syria)
11.064
8.020
11.241
11.241
UNIFIL (Lebanon)
14.745
18.042
24.228
24.228
MINURSO (W.Sahara)
10.992
8.325
11.749
5.000
UNMIK (Kosovo)
73.933
54.692
66.221
50.000
UNFICYP (Cyprus)
7.369
4.739
6.570
0.000
UNOMIG (Georgia)
9.041
6.156
9.416
9.416
4 U.S. Congress. House. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 5122. H.Rept. 109-702
(109th Congress, 2d session), p. 826.

---

CRS-6
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
Operation
Allocations
Request
Estimates
Request
UNAMSIL (Sierra
54.562
3.700
0.000
0.000
Leone)
UNMISET (E. Timor)
10.583
0.000
0.000
0.000
MONUC (Congo)
284.593
207.279
302.077
152.745
UNMEE
46.282
38.800
44.260
39.296
(Ethiopia/Eritrea)
UNMIL (Liberia)
235.421
159.213
198.473
150.000
ONUB (Burundi)
90.941
89.919
79.606
0.000
UNMIS (Sudan)
131.945
250.000
375.100
441.873
UNOCI (Cote d’Ivoire)
101.459
71.935
99.716
84.225
MINUSTAH (Haiti)
133.342
88.911
128.177
123.000
Subtotals
1,216.272
1,003.731
1,356.834
1,091.024
War crimes tribunals
42.193
31.769
42.193
44.303
TOTALS
1,258.465 a
1,035.500
1,399.027 b
1,135.327
a. Includes $145.010 million in FY2005 adjustment (recision) and $680 million appropriated in the
FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13), of which $50 million was transferred to the PKO account
($630 million).
b. Includes $376.752 million in adjustment (recisions). This is the amount expected to be required.
The real figure available is $1,022,276,000.
Basic Information
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 from the area. The U.N. Charter did not specifically provide for
“peacekeeping operations.” This term was devised in 1956, with the creation of the
U.N. Emergency Force as an interposition force between Israel and Egypt.5
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
5 See discussion of U.N. peacekeeping operations and concepts in Simma, Bruno. The
Charter of the United Nations; a Commentary; Second Edition. New York, Oxford
University Press, 2002. Vol. I, pages 648-700. Simma places this discussion between
Chapters VI and VII of the U.N. Charter. U.N. peacekeeping operations have often been
referred to as Chapter VI and ½ operations. See also http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/
dpko/faq/ for a 28-page brochure of questions and answers on U.N. peacekeeping.

---

CRS-7
operation within the countries of operation and within the parameters of its mandate;
provision of personnel on a voluntary basis by U.N. members; and noninterference
by the operation and its participants in the internal affairs of the host government.
The conditions under which armed force may be used to carry out the mandate or for
other purposes is set forth in the Council resolution or in Council approval of the
rules of engagement or concept of operations.
U.N. peacekeeping operations may take the form of either peacekeeping forces,
such as the U.N. Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), the U.N. Operation in the Congo [in
the 1960s], or the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), or observer missions,
such as the U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Mission (UNIIMOG), the U.N.
Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA), or the U.N. Truce Supervision
Organization in Palestine (UNTSO). The distinctions 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 the numbers of personnel, equipment, and cost than
observer missions and are lightly armed rather than unarmed, as are observers.
Since 1948, the United Nations has established 61 peacekeeping operations, 16
of which are currently active. A review of the data in Appendix 2, "U.N.
Peacekeeping Operations: Numbers Created Annually, 1948-2006," shows a pattern
of increase in the creation of operations that escalated during the mid-1990s. This
increase placed a strain on the then-not-well-developed capacities of the U.N.
Secretariat to support larger numbers of operations and personnel and also led to
what some have called “donor fatigue” on the part of actual and potential troop
contributing countries. The resulting hesitation or reluctance to rapidly provide
personnel for U.N. peacekeeping operations created by the U.N. Security Council
continues today.
U.S. Provision of Personnel
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.6 Throughout U.N. history,
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 category of forces provided by the United States were the individual
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. For example, as of November 30, 1995, an estimated 3,254 U.S.
military personnel served under U.N. control in eight operations. This included
participation, under section 7 of the UNPA, of an estimated 748 and participation of
6 See CRS Report RL31120, Peacekeeping: Military Command and Control Issues, by
Edward F. Bruner and Nina M. Serafino, for discussion of foreign command issues.

---

CRS-8
an estimated 2,506 under section 628 of the FAA. The breakout of figures under
each section for the forces in Macedonia (UNPREDEP) and Haiti (UNMIH) are
based on the percentage in strength (the figure in brackets) as of September 6, 1995.
See Table 3.
Table 3. U.S. Military Personnel under U.N. Control
As of November 30, 1995
Operation
Sec. 7, UNPA
Sec. 628, FAA
Total
UNTSO (Middle East)
11
0
11
UNIKOM (Iraq-Kuwait)
15
0
15
MINURSO (Western Sahara)
30
0
30
UNCRO (Croatia)
0
365
365
UNPREDEP (Macedonia)
248 [42%]
324 [58%]
559
UNPROFOR (Bosnia-
0
3
3
Herzegovina)
UNMIH (Haiti)
453 [20%]
1,814 [80%]
2,267
UNOMIG (Georgia)
4
0
4
TOTAL
748
2,506
3,254
By the end of April 1996, the number of U.S. military personnel serving in U.N.
peacekeeping operations had fallen to 712, with participation in the U.N. Mission in
Haiti ending.
As of September 30, 2006, an estimated 335 U.S. personnel served under U.N.
control in eight operations. Other than the civilian police in five operations, these
were U.S. military personnel. See Table 4. The United States currently contracts
with outside firms to provide U.S. civilian police, either active duty on a leave of
absence, former, or retired. They are hired for a year at a time and paid by the
contractor.7 These contracts are financed from Foreign Operations Act accounts. A
total of 77,002 personnel from 110 countries served in 16 U.N. peacekeeping
operations.
7 See http://www.state.gov/p/inl/civ for information and links to a Fact Sheet on The
United States and International Civilian Policing (CIVPOL).

---

CRS-9
Table 4. U.S. Personnel under U.N. Control
(As of September 30, 2006)
Operation
Total
UNTSO (Middle East)
3 (obs.)
UNMIK (Kosovo)
239 (police)
UNOMIG (Georgia)
2 (obs.)
UNMIL (Liberia)
22 (6 troop, 6 obs., 10 police)
UNMEE (Ethiopia & Eritrea)
7 (obs.)
MINUSTAH (Haiti)
51 (48 police, 3 troop)
UNMIS (Sudan)
7 (police)
UNMIT (E. Timor)
4 (police)
TOTAL
335
Note: This table is based on data provided monthly by the United Nations and available at
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors.
Other Peacekeeping Issues
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 of internal conflicts 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 cease-fire 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 U.N. Security Council had, in the past, been reluctant to approve
humanitarian assistance as a 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.8
8 On December 3, 1992, the Security Council acted, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter,
to authorize 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
Another variable of U.N. peacekeeping in instances of humanitarian distress has
been the extent to which peacekeepers can protect civilians, including those who
come to the peacekeepers for protection. Often, such protection had not been part of
the mandate approved by the U.N. Security Council and neither the composition of
an operation nor its rules of engagement or concept of operations allowed for such
action. Two situations have been widely regarded as significant examples of U.N.
peacekeeping failures in the protection of civilians. The first was the “1994 genocide
in Rwanda” and the second was the “fall of Srebrenica” in July 1995 and the killing
of up to 200,000 people. 9 Reports examining these failures have helped focus the
attention of U.N. officials and of U.N. member states, especially members of the
U.N. Security Council, on the need to prevent and to respond to this sort of situation.
The continuing conditions in Darfur, Sudan, however, reveal the difficulty of
fashioning and implementing an effective U.N. response in the face of continuing
reports of genocide.
The Role of U.N. Peacekeeping in Monitoring Elections. Some
authorities have called on the United Nations to organize, supervise, and/or monitor
elections in various countries. In the past, the United Nations had organized and
carried out elections and acts of self-determination pursuant to its Charter mandate
for decolonization. However, it had not responded affirmatively to many requests for
organizing or conducting elections in the peace and security domain. For example,
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, in 1991, the U.N. General Assembly authorized the Electoral
Assistance Division in the Department of Political Affairs to serve as a focal point
for all U.N. electoral assistance activities. This was in addition to the special peace
and security situations when the U.N. Security Council might approve U.N.
participation in plebiscites or elections. For example, in the case of Namibia
(UNTAG, 1989-1990), Western Sahara (MINURSO, 1991- present), and East Timor
(June-September 1999), the election was an act of self-determination, as part of an
overall conflict settlement arrangement. These referenda or elections were similar
to the traditional U.N. role in the decolonization process.
In other instances, the United Nations has conducted elections monitoring in an
independent U.N. member state. U.N. conduct of elections in Cambodia (UNTAC,
1992-1994) were part of a political settlement arrangement to bring about an end to
the Cambodian conflict. In the cases of Nicaragua and Haiti, 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
8 (...continued)
on May 4, 1993.
9 See http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/reports.htm , for the reports: S/1999/1257, on
Rwanda; and A/54/549 on Srebrenica.

---

CRS-11
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.
U.S. Financing for U.N. Peacekeeping
There are three major ways by which Congress may finance U.S. contributions
to U.N. peacekeeping operations. First, Congress currently finances U.S. assessed
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 percent of the expenses of the operation. U.S. arrearages to peacekeeping
operations are associated 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 initially financed from voluntary contributions from U.N. member
nations. On May 27, 1993, the Security Council changed the basis of funding for the
force in 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, PKO account to the State Department,
CIPA 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.
Because 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.

---

CRS-12
U.N. Proposals for Strengthening Peacekeeping
As peacekeeping became an option of choice to resolve conflicts in the
post-Cold War world, proposals were made for strengthening the U.N. response to
all aspects of this peace and security challenge. On January 31, 1992, the U.N.
Security Council, meeting at the heads of state and government level, “invited” U.N.
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to prepare “his analysis and
recommendations on ways of strengthening and making more efficient within the
framework and provisions of the Charter the capacity of the United Nations for
preventive diplomacy, for peacemaking and for peace-keeping.”10
The resultant 24-page report, An Agenda for Peace; Preventive Diplomacy,
Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping, was presented by the Secretary-General to the
Council on June 14, 1992.11 On peacekeeping, the Secretary-General noted that the
basic conditions for success remain unchanged: a clear and practicable mandate;
the cooperation of the parties in implementing that mandate; the continuing
support of the Security Council; the readiness of Member States to contribute the
military, police and civilian personnel, including specialists, required; effective
United Nations command at Headquarters and in the field; and adequate financial
and logistic support.12
Among his recommendations on peacekeeping were greater use by member
states of the Stand-by Arrangements System; improved programs for training
peacekeeping personnel, including civilian, police, or military; and special personnel
procedures to permit the “rapid transfer of Secretariat staff members to service with
peace-keeping operations.” He urged that a “pre-positioned stock of basic peace-
keeping equipment ... be established, so that at least some vehicles, communications
equipment, generators, etc., would be immediately available at the start of an
operation.”
After its initial positive reaction to the report [Statement by Council President,
June 30, 1992], the U.N. Security Council undertook an in-depth examination of the
report over the following years, starting on October 29, 1992. Thereafter, each
month through May 1993, the Council met and the Council President issued a
statement on some aspect of the report and its recommendations.13 On May 3, 1994,
10 Statement by Council President, January 31, 1992. This was the first Council meeting
at the “Summit” level. Heads of state and government from 13 of the 15 member states
attended; two Council members were represented at the foreign minister level. Yearbook
of the United Nations, 1992, p. 34. Also, U.N. document number S/23500.
11 The report, U.N. document number A/47/277 - S/24111, can be found at
http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html.
12 A/47/277, para. 50, p. 14-15.
13 October 29, 1992, on stand-by arrangements for more rapid access to peacekeeping
personnel; November 30, 1992, on fact-finding and preventive diplomacy; December 30,
1992, on special economic problems associated with imposition of sanctions; January 28,
1993, on cooperation with regional arrangements and organizations; February 26, 1993, on
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
the Council President issued an extensive statement that dealt with criteria for
establishing new operations; the need to review ongoing operations; communication
with non-members of the Council, including troop contributing nations; stand-by
arrangements; civilian personnel; training; command and control; and financial and
administrative issues. This statement mirrored the content of the May 1994 U.S.
Presidential Decision Directive on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations (PDD
25).
Security Council follow-up related to the Agenda for Peace initiatives continued
through 1998, accompanied by debate and recommendations by the U.N. General
Assembly and its Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and its Informal
Open-Ended Working Group on an Agenda for Peace.14 While the Working Group
did not produce final recommendations and stopped meeting in 1996, the more
formal Special Committee formally reviewed the report, produced recommendations
for action by the Secretary-General and by the General Assembly, and requested
further reports from the Secretary-General.
Among the resulting changes relating to U.N. peacekeeping are the following:
! Creation of a 24-hour operations or situation center;
! Transfer of the Field Operations Division from the Department of
Administration and Management to the Department for
Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO);
! Establishment of a Peacekeeping Reserve Fund of $150 million to
help with financing for start-up of an operation;
! Adoption of a Convention on Protection of U.N. personnel
! Creation of a military planning cell in DPKO;
! Improvement of three major departments related to peacekeeping
(DPKO, Department of Political Affairs, and Department of
Humanitarian Affairs); and
13 (...continued)
humanitarian assistance and its relationship to peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peace-
building; March 31, 1993, on the safety of U.N. forces and personnel; April 30, 1993, on
post-conflict peace-building; and May 28, 1993, on U.N. peacekeeping operations.
14 The Informal Open-Ended Working Group on an Agenda for Peace was created in 1992
and stopped meeting in 1996. As the title indicated, participation was open to the entire
U.N. membership. See http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/wkgrplst.htm. The Special
Committee on Peacekeeping Operations was created by U.N. General Assembly Resolution
2006 (XIX) in 1965 to undertake a comprehensive review of peacekeeping operations. Its
membership, expanded in 1996, numbered 115 member states in 2005.

---

CRS-14
! Creation of a Task Force on United Nations Operations to coordinate
among departments and provide the Secretary-General with options
and recommendations on policy issues.
On August 23, 2000, a special Panel on United Nations Peace Operations,
convened by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, issued a report presenting its
recommendations aimed at improving the U.N.’s peace and security capabilities.
Annan had asked the Panel to “assess the shortcomings of the existing system and to
make frank, specific and realistic recommendations for change.”15 Some of the
recommendations have been implemented, both those the Secretary-General may
carry out on his own and those requiring General Assembly authorization and/or the
provision of additional funds, including increasing staff levels in the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations. Other recommendations, however, especially those
requiring expeditious Member State commitments of personnel for deployment, still
wait for full achievement.
Since 2004, reform of U.N. peacekeeping has become part of the overall review
of the United Nations, its capabilities and capacities in the 21st century, and the need
to reform and renew the organization. The December 2004 report of a High-Level
Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Responses convened by Secretary-General Annan
recommended that “Member States should strongly support” efforts of the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations, “building on the ... work of the Brahimi
Panel on U.N. Peace Operations. The Panel observed that “the demand for personnel
for both full-scale peace-enforcement missions and peacekeeping missions remains
higher than the ready supply. In the absence of a commensurate increase in available
personnel, United Nations peacekeeping risks repeating some of its worst failures of
the 1990s.”16
U.N. Secretary-General Annan in his March 2005 reform proposals echoed the
call for improved deployment options with strategic reserves that could be rapidly
employed.17 In addition, he stated that the time was ripe for “the establishment of
an interlocking system of peacekeeping capacities that will enable the United Nations
to work with relevant regional organizations in predictable and reliable partnerships.”
Annan also noted allegations of misconduct by U.N. administrators and
peacekeepers. He asserted that U.N. peacekeepers and peacebuilders have a solemn
responsibility to respect international law and fundamental human rights and
especially the rights of the people whom it is their mission to protect.
Later, in March 2005, a comprehensive report on sexual exploitation and abuse
by U.N. peacekeeping personnel was issued by the Secretary-General and his Special
15 See text of the nearly 70-page report at http://www.un.org/peace/reports/
peace_operations/.
16 High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. A More Secure World: Our
Shared Responsibility. United Nations, 2004. p. 68-69. See http://www.un.org/
secureworld/.
17 In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. Report
of the Secretary-General. U.N. document A/59/2005 at [http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/].

---

CRS-15
Adviser on this issue.18 Prince Zeid’s report, A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate
Future Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations,
recognized that both the United Nations Secretariat and U.N. member States had
responsibilities in resolving this problem. Its recommendations were endorsed by the
U.N. General Assembly on June 22, 2005, in A/RES/59/300.
Finally, the 60th session of the U.N. General Assembly, meeting as a World
Summit in September 2005, approved a 2005 World Summit Outcome, as
A/RES/60/1. The Heads of State and Government convened at this meeting urged
“further development of proposals for enhanced rapidly deployable capacities to
reinforce peacekeeping operations in crises. We endorse the creation of an initial
operating capability for a standing police capacity to provide coherent, effective and
responsive start-up capability for the policing component of the United Nations
peacekeeping missions and to assist existing missions through the provision of advice
and expertise.” [para. 92] They also “underscore[d] the importance of the
recommendations of the Adviser to the Secretary-General on Sexual Exploitation and
Abuse by United Nations Peacekeeping Personnel, and urge[d] that those measures
adopted in the relevant General Assembly resolutions based upon the
recommendations be fully implemented without delay.” [para. 96]
The United States and Peacekeeping Proposals
The Clinton Administration initially supported collective security through the
United Nations as a centerpiece of its foreign policy. Later, President Clinton, in a
September 1993 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, 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.” 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.19 In May 1994, 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,
18 Media reports on this issue throughout 2004 and even earlier had led Annan in July 2004
to ask the Permanent Representative of Jordan, His Royal Highness Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid
Al-Hussein to act as his adviser and to assist in addressing the problem. After the U.N.
Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, in its 2005 report, asked Annan for a
“comprehensive report with recommendations on sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N.
peacekeeping personnel, Annan asked Prince Zeid to prepare the report, which was issued
on March 24, 2005. See U.N. document A/59/710, at http://www.un.org/Depts/
dpko/dpko/ctte/SEA.htm; includes links to statements, reports, and related materials.
19 Speech on September 27, 1993, in Public Papers of the Presidents. William J. Clinton,
1993, vol 2, p. 1612-1618.

---

CRS-16
information, and command and control capabilities of the United Nations. The
policy also supported reducing the U.S. peacekeeping assessment from 31.7% to
25%.
In a May 16, 2000 statement to a U.N. General Assembly committee, U.S.
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke presented reform proposals aimed at strengthening
U.N. capacities for U.N. peacekeeping and at changing the basis for financing U.N.
peacekeeping.20 On August 24, 2000, a statement by the State Department
spokesman “commended” the work of the U.N. Panel on Peace Operations [the
Brahimi Panel], noting that “the United States has been one of the earliest and most
insistent voices calling for improvement in planning, the pace of deployment, and
overall effectiveness in peacekeeping.”
In December 2004, Congress mandated the establishment of a bipartisan Task
Force on the United Nations, to be organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace. The
Task Force was to report to Congress within six months on how to make the United
Nations more effective in realizing the goals of its Charter. It was chaired by Newt
Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and by George J. Mitchell,
former Majority Leader of the Senate. The report, American Interests and U.N.
Reform, was issued on March 24, 2005.21 The Task Force offered a wide variety of
comments and recommendations relating to United Nations peacekeeping. They
included the following:
The key question for the Task Force in the area of UN peacekeeping is whether
we are prepared to endorse the current practice of the United States and other
members of the Security Council in demanding that peacekeepers regularly
engage in a broad range of robust security activities. If so, then the United States
and other governments must do much more to enhance capacities if we wish to
ensure substantial success. The Task Force believes that the practical
alternatives — to consign the United Nations to future failures, or to dramatically
reduce the United Nations’ role in efforts to manage conflict and build stable
societies — are unacceptable. [p. 90-91]
Member states “must substantially increase the availability of capable,
designated forces, properly trained and equipped, for rapid deployment to peace
operations on a voluntary basis. The Secretariat should enhance its capacity to
coordinate increases in member state contributions to the Stand-By
Arrangements system.” [p. 97]
The Task Force noted that while “the United States formally participates in the
United Nations Stand-By Arrangements system, its participation is of only
limited operational value to the United Nations — as it provides only a very
general list of U.S. capabilities.... [T]he United States should consider
upgrading its participation in this voluntary program” by providing more detailed
information about the support it might consider. [p. 97]
20 See USUN Press Release #62 (00) at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations website,
http://www.un.int/usa/00_062.htm.
21 See text at http://www.usip/org/un/report/usip_un_report.pdf.

---

CRS-17
The United States should support (1) creation of a senior police force
management unit to conduct assessments and assist in the establishment of new
peace operations; (2) assessed funding for first-year, quick-impact projects in
peace operations, as well as the full range of early disarmament, demobilization,
and reintegration assistance when those have been identified in premission
assessments as critical for success; and (3) the adoption of two-year budgets for
support of peacekeeping to ensure greater stability, permit more careful planning,
and reduce administrative burdens. [p. 97-98]
Concerned over reports of sexual exploitation and abuse by deployed U.N.
peacekeepers and drawing on the findings by Prince Zeid, in his Comprehensive
Strategy report, the Task Force urged that the United States
strongly support implementation of reform measures designed to ensure uniform
standards for all civilian and military participants in peace operations; improve
training programs relating to sexual exploitation and abuse; increase deployment
of women in peacekeeping operations; encourage deployment of established
(rather than ‘patched together’) units to peacekeeping operations; impose
accountability of senior managers; support effective data collection and
management; provide victims assistance; increase staff to enhance supervision;
and organize recreational activities for peacekeepers. Finally, states that prove
unwilling or unable to ensure discipline among their troops should not be
permitted to provide troops to peacekeeping missions. [p. 96]
Congress and United Nations Peacekeeping:
1991-2005
Overview
Congress has, over the years, used authorizations and especially appropriations
bills to express its views and enhance its oversight of U.S. executive branch actions
and uses of United Nations peacekeeping operations. This has ranged from
diminishing to increasing U.S. assessed contributions and linking release of U.S.
contributions to reports on actions taken to improve U.N. peacekeeping reform or
other actions, not related to peacekeeping, by the United Nations. It has requested
to be kept informed on a monthly, an ad hoc, and annual basis of U.S. efforts taken
in the U.N. Security Council to create or to expand U.N. peacekeeping. It has tried
to ensure that U.S. companies engaged in activities that would be useful to the United
Nations have equal access to U.N. procurement efforts.

---

CRS-18
Table 5. U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping as Requested
and Enacted, FY1988-FY2005
(in millions of $)
Fiscal Year
Requested
Supplemental
Enacted
Cyprus
1988
—
—
29.400
7.312
1989
29.000
—
141.000
7.312
1990
—
—
81.079
8.837
1991
247.400
—
133.521
8.836
1992
201.292
350.000
464.202
8.374
1993
460.315
293.000
460.315
9.000
1994
401.607
619.736
670.000
670.000
—
1995
533.304
Rejected 672.000
533.304
—
1996
445.000
—
359.000
—
1997a
425.000
—
352.400
—
1998b
286.000
—
256.632
—
1999c
231.000
—
231.000
—
2000
235.000
Rejected 107.000
498.100
—
2001
738.666
—
844.139
—
2002d
844.139
23.034
844.139
—
2003
725.981
—
673.710
—
2004
350.200
245.000
695.056
—
780 Req; 680
2005
650.000
Appropriated
1,113.455
—
Note: Except for the U.N. Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), U.S. assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping are funded from CIPA account, State Department. U.S. money for UNFICYP was
originally financed by voluntary contributions, funded through the Foreign Operations Act.
a. “Requested” includes $142.4 million for arrears payment; “Enacted” includes $50 million for
arrears.
b. Both “Requested” and “Enacted” include $46 million for arrears payment.
c. $11.55 million of “Enacted” was transferred to the CIO account, leaving $219.450 million.
d. $43 million requested, March 21, 2002, in Emergency FY2002 Supplemental Appropriation. P.L.
107-206 provided $23,034,000. Included in the Enacted figure is $42.206 million, which was
transferred from the CIPA to the CIO account, leaving $801.933 million for allocation.
Congress provided initial U.S. contributions for the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait
Observation Mission in 1991 (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.

---

CRS-19
During 1992, some in Congress focused 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 Paul
Simon introduced a bill, for example, suggesting that the United States finance its
peacekeeping contributions from the defense budget function, as a larger and more
reliable source.22 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 George Bush sent
that report to Congress on January 19, 1993.23
In 1993, in contrast, Congress did not provide all the funding requested by the
President for financing U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. Congress
appropriated $401.6 million of the $619.7 million requested in the CIPA account in
the State Department Appropriations Act, FY1994 (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 (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’s concerns in this area were expressed in a series of
requirements included in the conference report on State Department appropriations.
They included:
! Recommending that the Administration review thoroughly the
current process of committing to peacekeeping operations.
! Expecting the Administration to notify the United Nations that the
United States will not accept an assessment greater than 25% for any
new or expanded peacekeeping commitments after the date of
enactment of this Act.
! Expecting the State Department in its FY1995 budget submission to
include an annual three-year projection of U.S. peacekeeping costs
and submit a detailed plan identifying U.S. actions needed to correct
policy and structural deficiencies in U.S. involvement with U.N.
peacekeeping activities.
22 S. 2560, “A bill to reclassify the cost of international peacekeeping activities from
international affairs to national defense” Introduced, April 9, 1992, Senator Paul Simon,
102d Congress. Hearings held, June 9, 1992, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
23 Letter to Congressional Leaders Transmitting the Report on the Recommendations of the
United Nations Secretary-General, January 19, 1993. Letter at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/
research/papers/1993/93011913.html.

---

CRS-20
! Expecting the Secretary of State to notify both appropriations
committees 15 days in advance, where practicable, of a vote by the
U.N. Security Council to establish any new or expanded
peacekeeping operation.
! Expecting the notification to include the total estimated cost, the
U.S. share, the mission and objectives, duration and estimated
termination date, and the source of funding for the U.S. share.
Similar concerns and requirements were placed in statutory language in the Defense
Appropriations Act, FY1994 (Section 8153, P.L. 103- 139, November 11, 1993) and
the National Defense Authorization Act, FY1994 (Title XI, P.L. 103-160, November
30, 1993).
In 1994, the State Department appropriations bill (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 (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.
Congress, in early 1996, responded to the President’s February 1995 request by
appropriating $359 million ($445 million requested) for FY1996 CIPA funding (P.L.
104-134, April 26, 1996) and $70 million ($100 million requested) for the PKO
account (P.L. 104-107, February 12, 1996). Congress rejected the President’s request
for $672 million in FY1995 emergency supplemental funding in the CIPA account.
Congress also rejected the Administration’s proposal 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.
Congress, in 1996, provided $352.4 million for U.S. assessments to U.N.
peacekeeping accounts in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY1997
(P.L. 104-208). This included $50 million for U.S. peacekeeping arrears
accumulated in 1995. Release of the arrears funding depended on an Administration
certification that two of three U.N. non-peacekeeping-related actions occur: (1)
savings of $100 million in biennial expenses of five U.N. Secretariat divisions; (2)
reduction in the number of U.N. staff by December 31, 1997, by at least 10% of the
number employed on January 1, 1996; and (3) adoption of a budget outline for
1998-1999 lower than the current 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. Use of these funds was subject to Committee
review procedures.
Furthermore, Congress stipulated that none of the funds in the CIPA account
shall be spent for any new or expanded U.N. peacekeeping mission unless the

---

CRS-21
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.
In 1997, Congress appropriated $256 million ($286 million requested) for the
FY1998 CIPA (including $46 million for prior year payments/arrears) and $77.5
million ($90 million requested) for the FY1998 PKO account. Release of $46
million for arrears payments was contingent on passage of an authorization package
linking arrears payments to specific U.N. reforms. Release of part of the PKO funds,
for the Multilateral Force and Observers (MFO), was contingent on the Secretary of
State filing a report on the status of efforts to replace the Director-General of the
MFO (letter sent to Congress, March 18, 1998).

In 1998, Congress appropriated the requested $231 million for U.S. assessed
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations (CIPA) and $76.5 million ($83
million requested) for international peacekeeping activities (PKO). Congress,
however, did not include funds ($921 million) sought in a FY1998 supplemental to
pay U.N. and international organization arrears in FY1999 ($475 million) and
FY2000 ($446 million).
In 1999, Congress appropriated $500 million for payment of U.S. assessed
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts in the State Department Appropriations
Act and $153 million for voluntary contributions to international peacekeeping
activities in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, both of which were
incorporated by reference into the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000,
P.L. 106-113.
Congress also sent the President H.R. 3194 (106th Congress), the State
Department Authorization Act for FY2000-FY2001 (H.R. 3427), which authorized
$500 million for the CIPA account for FY2000 and “such sums as may be necessary
for FY2001” and contained a number of peacekeeping-related provisions. One
provision required an annual report to the United Nations on all U.S. costs
(“assessed, voluntary, and incremental”) incurred in support of all U.N. Security
Council passed peace activities and required the President to request the United
Nations to compile and publish a report on the costs incurred by all U.N. members
in support of U.N. peacekeeping activities. Another provision amended the U.N.
Participation Act requiring the President to obtain timely U.N. reimbursement for
U.S. goods and services valued at over $3 million per fiscal year, per operation,
provided to the United Nations. Another section codified in the U.N. Participation
Act language previously enacted on consultations and reports on United Nations
Peacekeeping Operations. Lastly, this legislation provided for U.S. arrears payments
of $819 million to the United Nations for regular budget and peacekeeping accounts
for FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000. In addition, section 913 provided for the
forgiveness of $107 million in amounts owed by the United Nations to the United

---

CRS-22
States in reimbursements for peacekeeping troops. The primary benchmarks relating
to peacekeeping included a 25% ceiling on peacekeeping assessments and no funding
for or development of a U.N. standing army.
In 2000, Congress appropriated $846 million for the FY2001 CIPA account, in
response to the President’s request of $738.6 million for FY2001 and a FY2000
supplemental of $107 million. Congress did not approve the supplemental for
FY2000. In June 2000, the House Appropriations Committee, in recommending a
smaller appropriation, expressed its “gravest concern” over what it called “the
Administration’s tendency to ... extend moribund missions and to establish and
expand missions irrespective of Congressional input or the availability of funding to
pay for them.” The $134 million requested for the FY2001 PKO account was
reduced in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill to $127 million (P.L. 106-429).
On October 5, 2001, President Bush signed legislation amending the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000-2001 (P.L. 107-46). This bill revised
a condition prohibiting the obligation of appropriated funds for payment of U.S.
arrearages for assessed contributions to the United Nations until the share of the
budget for each assessed U.N. peacekeeping operation does not exceed 28.15% for
any single U.N. member. On November 28, 2001, the President signed H.R. 2500,
appropriating funds for the State Department, including the amount requested for the
FY2002 CIPA account (P.L. 107-77). The law includes a provision requiring that
15% ($126,620,850) of the $844,139,000 appropriated for CIPA remain available
until September 30, 2003. On January 10, 2002, the President signed H.R. 2506,
providing $135 million ($150 million requested) in voluntary contributions for the
FY2002 PKO account under the Foreign Operations Act.
On March 21, 2002, President Bush, in his Emergency FY2002 Supplemental
Appropriations request (H.Doc. 107-195), included $43 million for the CIPA
account, “to meet projected increased costs for U.N. peacekeeping operations. The
United States has a clear national interest in resolving multi-state conflicts and
encouraging the evolution of stable democracies in countries in which U.N.
peacekeeping missions are operational.” Congress provided $23,034,000 for
“increased assessments” for the U.N. operation in the Congo in H.R. 4775, which
was signed on August 2, 2002 (P.L. 107-206).
On September 30, 2002, the President signed the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002-2003 (P.L. 107-228), in which Congress
authorized $844 million for U.S. assessed contributions in CIPA and amended
provisions relating to 25% assessment level condition and cap on payment of U.S.
assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. On February 20, 2003, the
President signed the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7),
which provided $673,710,000 for the CIPA account ($725.9 million requested) and
$120,250,000 for the PKO account ($108.8 million requested). The conferees
provided that, as requested by the President, 15% of the amount in the CIPA account
(approx. $101 million) be available through September 30, 2004. This was due to
“demonstrated unpredictability of the requirements ... from year to year and the
nature of multi-year operations” with “mandates overlapping the [U.S.] ... fiscal
year.”

---

CRS-23
On April 24, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in recommending
S. 925, authorized, for FY2004, the requested $550.2 million to pay U.S. assessed
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts. The Committee set the assessment
limit for U.S. peacekeeping contributions beyond CY2004 at 27.4%. The Committee
also asked the Secretary of State to assess U.N. implementation of the Brahimi Panel
recommendations on U.N. peacekeeping capabilities reform and U.S. support of U.N.
progress in this area (S.Rept. 108-39). On July 16, 2003, the House passed H.R.
1950, authorizing $550.2 million, as requested, for the CIPA account and setting the
peacekeeping assessment cap for CY2005 and CY2006 at 27.1%. An authorization
bill was not enacted in 2003.
On July 23, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2799, appropriating for FY2004, the
requested $550.2 million for CIPA. The Senate Appropriations Committee, on
September 5, 2003, recommended $482,649,000 for the CIPA account (S. 1585).
Committee and floor recommendations for the PKO account ranged from $84.9
million (S. 1426) to $85 million (H.R. 2800) to $110 million (H.R. 1950). The
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations bill, signed on January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-
199), Div. B, provided $550,200,000 (including $454,842,000 in new direct
appropriations and $95,358,000 in prior year unobligated balances) for the CIPA
account and in Div. C, Foreign Operations, $74,900,000 for the PKO account. On
November 6, 2003, the President had signed the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Defense and for Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for
FY2004 (P.L. 108-106) which added $245 million to the CIPA account for assessed
costs of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and $50 million to the PKO account to support
multilateral peacekeeping needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On July 1, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 4754,
including the State Department Appropriations bill for FY2005, providing $650
million, as requested, for the CIPA account. The bill does not include requested
language to make a portion of appropriations under CIPA available for two fiscal
years. On July 8, 2004, the House passed this bill, including the requested CIPA
funds. On July 15, 2004, the House passed H.R. 4818, the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act, providing the requested $104 million for the PKO account. On
September 15, 2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2809,
including the State Department Appropriations bill, providing $574 million for the
CIPA account and on September 16, 2004, the Committee reported S. 2812,
providing the requested amount for the PKO account in Foreign Operations
Appropriations. On September 23, 2004, the Senate, after incorporating S. 2812 into
H.R. 4818 as an amendment, passed H.R. 4818, by voice vote.
For FY2005, Congress provided $490 million for CIPA and $104 million for
PKO (FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447, December 8, 2004).
The $490 million was reduced to $483,544,832 by an across-the-board cut of 0.80%
and a Division B cut of 0.54%. The $104 million for the PKO account was cut
0.80% to $103,168,000. The peacekeeping assessment cap for CY2005 was set at
27.1% in P.L. 108-447.
On November 22, 2005, the President signed H.R. 2862 which included, in the
State Department Appropriations Act, FY2006, the requested $1,035,500,000 for the
CIPA account, of which 15% shall be available until September 30, 2007 (P.L. 109-

---

CRS-24
108). The actual amount available, after a recision, was $1,022,275,000. The
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY2006, was enacted, with $175 million for
the PKO account (P.L. 109-102, November 14, 2005). Earlier in 2005, the President
signed H.R. 1268 (P.L. 109-13, May 11, 2005), a FY2005 Supplemental that
provided $680 million for CIPA for FY2005 ($50 million of this was transferred to
the PKO account, leaving $630 million available).

---

CRS-25
Appendix 1. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations:
A Chronological List
Acronym and Service
Name of Operation
Location
Dates
*U.N. Truce Supervision Organi-
UNTSO 1948-
Middle East
zation
in Palestine
*U.N. Military Observer Group in
UNMOGIP 1949-
Jammu, Kashmir
India and Pakistan
and Pakistan
U.N. Emergency Force I
UNEF I 1956-1967
Gaza; Egyptian
side in Sinai
U.N. Observer Group in Lebanon
UNOGIL June-Dec. 1958
—
U.N. Operation in the Congo
ONUC 1960-1964
—
U.N. Security Force in West New
UNSF Oct. 1962-Apr.
West Irian
Guinea
1963
U.N. Yemen Observer Mission
UNYOM July 1963-Sept.
—
1964
*U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus UNFICYP 1964-
—
Mission of Represent. of the Sec’ty-
DOMREP May 1965-Oct.
—
Gen’l in the Dominican Republic
1966
U.N. India/Pakistan Observer
UNIPOM Sept. 1965-Mar.
India-Pakistan
Mission
1966
border
U.N. Emergency Force II
UNEF II 1973-1979
Suez Canal sector;
Sinai Peninsula
*U.N. Disengagement Observer
UNDOF 1974-
Israel-Syria:
Force
Golan Heights
*U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon
UNIFIL 1978-
Southern Lebanon
U.N. Good Offices Mission in
UNGOMAP Apr. 1988-
—
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Mar. 1990
U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer
UNIIMOG 1988-1991
—
Mission
U.N. Angola Verification Mission
UNAVEM Jan. 1989-May
—
1991
U.N. Transition Assistance Group
UNTAG Apr. 1989-Mar.
Namibia and
1990
Angola
U.N. Observer Group in Central
ONUCA Nov. 1989-Jan.
Costa Rica, El
America
1992
Salvador, Guate-
mala, Honduras,
Nicaragua
U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation
UNIKOM Apr. 1991-Oct.
—
Mission
6, 2003
U.N. Observer Mission in El
ONUSAL May 1991-Apr.
—
Salvador
1995
U.N. Angola Verification Mission II
UNAVEM II May 1991-
—
Feb. 1995
*U.N. Mission for the Referendum
MINURSO Apr. 1991-
—
in Western Sahara
U.N. Advance Mission in Cambodia
UNAMIC Oct. 1991-Mar.
—
1992

---

CRS-26
Acronym and Service
Name of Operation
Location
Dates
U.N. Protection Force
UNPROFOR Feb. 1992;
Former Yugosla-
March 1995-Jan. 1996
via: Croatia,
Bosnia, “Mace-
donia”; B&H
U.N. Transitional Authority in
UNTAC Feb. 1992-Oct.
—
Cambodia
1994
U.N. Operation in Somalia I
UNOSOM Apr. 1992-Apr.
—
1993
U.N. Operation in Mozambique
ONUMOZ Dec. 1992-Jan.
—
1995
U.N. Operation in Somalia II
UNOSOM II May 1993-
—
March 1995
U.N. Observer Mission Uganda-
UNOMUR June 1993-
Uganda
Rwanda
Sept. 1994
*U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia
UNOMIG Aug. 1993-
—
U.N. Observer Mission in Liberia
UNOMIL Sept. 1993-Sept. —
1997
U.N. Mission in Haiti
UNMIH Sept. 1993-June
—
1996
U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda UNAMIR Oct. 1993-
—
March 1996
U.N. Aouzou Strip Observer Group
UNASOG May 4-June 13,
Chad and Libya
1994
U.N. Mission of Observers in
UNMOT Dec. 1994-May
—
Tajikistan
15, 2000
U.N. Angola Verification Mission III UNAVEM III Feb. 1995-
—
June 1997
U.N. Confidence Restoration
UNCRO March 1995-Jan.
—
Operation in Croatia
1996
U.N. Preventive Deployment Force
UNPREDEP March 1995-
“Macedonia”
Feb. 1999
U.N. Mission in Bosnia and
UNMIBH Dec. 1995-Dec.
Bosnia &
Herzegovina (Includes Intl. Police
31, 2002
Herzegovina
Task Force (IPTF))
U.N. Transitional Administration for UNTAES Jan. 1996-
Croatia
E. Slavonia, Baranja & W. Sirmium
Jan.1998
U.N. Mission of Observers in the
UNMOP Jan. 1996-Dec.
Croatia
Prevlaka
15, 2002
U.N. Support Mission in Haiti
UNSMIH June 1996-July
—
1997
U.N. Verification Mission in
MINUGUA Jan. 20-May
—
Guatemala
1997
U.N. Observer Mission in Angola
MONUA July 1997-Feb.
—
1999
U.N. Transition Mission in Haiti
UNTMIH Aug.-Nov. 1997
—
U.N. Civilian Police Mission in Haiti MIPONUH Dec.1997-
—
March 2000

---

CRS-27
Acronym and Service
Name of Operation
Location
Dates
U.N. Civilian Police Support Group - UNPSG Jan.-Oct. 15, 1998 —
Croatia
U.N. Mission in the Central African
MINURCA March 27,
—
Republic
1998-Feb. 15, 2000
U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra
UNOMSIL July 1998-Oct.
—
Leone
1999
*U.N. Interim Administration
UNMIK June 10, 1999-
—
Mission in Kosovo
*U.N. Observer Mission in the
MONUC Aug. 6, 1999-
—
Democratic Republic of the Congo
U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone
UNAMSIL Oct. 22, 1999-
—
Dec. 31, 2005
U.N. Transitional Administration in
UNTAET 1999-2002
—
East Timor
* U.N. Mission in Ethiopia and
UNMEE Sept. 15, 2000-
—
Eritrea
U.N. Mission of Support in East
UNMISET May 20, 2002-
—
Timor
May 20, 2005
* U.N. Mission in Liberia
UNMIL Sept. 19, 2003-
—
* U.N. Mission in Cote d’Ivoire
UNOCI April 4, 2004-
—
* U.N. Operation in Burundi
ONUB June 1, 2004-
—
* U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti MINUSTAH June 1,
—
2004-
* U.N. Mission in the Sudan
UNMIS March 24, 2005-
—
* U.N. Integrated Mission in Timor-
UNMIT August 25, 2006-
—
Leste
* Operation is still in existence.

---

CRS-28
Appendix 2. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
Numbers Created Annually: 1948 - 2006
Year — Number
Operation and Dates
1948 — one
*U.N. Truce Supervision Organization
in Palestine (UNTSO) 1948-
1949 — one
*U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP) 1949-
1956 — one
U.N. Emergency Force I (UNEF I) 1956-1967
1958 — one
U.N. Observer Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL) June-Dec.
1958
1960s — six
U.N. Operation in the Congo (ONUC) 1960-1964
U.N. Security Force in West New Guinea (UNSF)
Oct. 1962-Apr. 1963
U.N. Yemen Observer Mission
(UNYOM) July 1963-Sept. 1964
*U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) 1964-
Mission of Representative of the Secretary- General in the
Dominican Republic (DOMREP) May 1965-Oct. 1966
U.N. India/Pakistan Observer Mission (UNIPOM) Sept.
1965-Mar. 1966
1970s — three
U.N. Emergency Force II (UNEF II) 1973-1979
*U.N. Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 1974-
*U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 1978-
1988 — two
U.N. Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan
(UNGOMAP) Apr. 1988-Mar. 1990
U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Mission
(UNIIMOG) 1988-1991
1989 — three
U.N. Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM) Jan.
1989-May 1991
U.N. Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) Apr. 1989-
Mar. 1990
U.N. Observer Group in Central America
(ONUCA) Nov. 1989-Jan. 1992
1991 — five
U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission
(UNIKOM) Apr. 1991-Oct. 6, 2003
U.N. Observer Mission in El Salvador
(ONUSAL) May 1991-Apr. 1995
U.N. Angola Verification Mission II (UNAVEM II) May
1991-Feb. 1995
*U.N. Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
(MINURSO) Apr. 1991-
U.N. Advance Mission in Cambodia
(UNAMIC) Oct. 1991-Mar. 1992

---

CRS-29
Year — Number
Operation and Dates
1992 — four
U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) Feb. 1992; March
1995-Jan. 1996
U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia
(UNTAC) Feb. 1992-Oct. 1994
U.N. Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM) Apr. 1992-Apr.
1993
U.N. Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ) Dec. 1992-
Jan. 1995
1993 — six
U.N. Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) May 1993-
March 1995
U.N. Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda
(UNOMUR) June 1993-Sept. 1994
*U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) Aug.
1993-
U.N. Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) Sept.
1993-Sept. 1997
U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH) Sept. 1993-June 1996
U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda
(UNAMIR) Oct. 1993-March 1996
1994 — two
U.N. Aouzou Strip Observer Group (UNASOG) May 4-
June 13, 1994
U.N. Mission of Observers in Tajikistan
(UNMOT) Dec. 1994-May 15, 2000
1995 — four
U.N. Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III)
Feb. 1995-June 1997
U.N. Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia
(UNCRO) March 1995-Jan. 1996
U.N. Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP)
March 1995-Feb. 1999
U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Includes Intl.
Police Task Force (IPTF))
(UNMIBH) Dec. 1995-Dec. 31, 2002
1996 — three
U.N. Transitional Administration for E. Slavonia, Baranja
& W. Sirmium (UNTAES) Jan. 1996-Jan.1998
U.N. Mission of Observers in the Prevlaka
(UNMOP) Jan. 1996-Dec. 15, 2002
U.N. Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH) June 1996-
July 1997
1997 — four
U.N. Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA)
Jan. 20-May 1997
U.N. Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) July 1997-
Feb. 1999
U.N. Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) Aug.-Nov.
1997
U.N. Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH)
Dec.1997-March 2000

---

CRS-30
Year — Number
Operation and Dates
1998 — three
U.N. Civilian Police Support Group - Croatia (UNPSG)
Jan.-Oct. 15, 1998
U.N. Mission in the Central African Republic
(MINURCA) March 27, 1998-Feb. 15, 2000
U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone
(UNOMSIL) July 1998-Oct. 1999
1999 — four
*U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
(UNMIK) June 10, 1999-
*U.N. Observer Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC) Aug. 6, 1999-
*U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) Oct. 22,
1999-
U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor
(UNTAET) 1999-2002
2000 — one
* U.N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea
(UNMEE) Sept. 15, 2000-
2002 — one
* U.N. Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET)
May 20, 2002-
2003 — two
U.N. Mission in Cote d’Ivoire (MINUCI) May 2003-April
2004
* U.N. Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Sept. 19, 2003-
2004 — three
* U.N. Mission in Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI) April 4, 2004-
* U.N. Operation in Burundi (ONUB) June 1, 2004-
* U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti
(MINUSTAH) June 1, 2004-
2005 — one
* U.N. Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) March 24, 2005-
2006 — one
* U.N. Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
August 25, 2006
* Operation is still ongoing.

---

CRS-31
Appendix 3. United Nations Peacekeeping over the Years
Statistical Data for Comparative Analysis
1978-2006
No. of
U.S.
U.N. Costs
U.S. Con-
Operation
U.N.
Person-
Year
Calendar Year
tribution
s as of
Personnel*
nel, as of
in US $
CY, in U.S. $
12/31
12/31
1978
6
202,000,000
16,700
61,572,000
1988
7
266,000,000
13,000
36,712,000
1989
10
635,000,000
17,900
173,312,000
1990
8
464,000,000
13,700
132,004,101
1991
11
490,000,000
15,300
144,016,219
87
1992
13
1,767,000,000
52,200
544,592,595
436
1993
17
3,059,000,000
78,744
794,237,165
2,629
(7/31)
1994
17
3,342,000,000
78,111
991,400,000
963
(9/30)
1995
16
3,364,000,000
68,894
411,137,688
2,851
(8/31)
1996
16
1,405,000,000
29,140
333,958,992
759
(1/31)
1997
15
1,160,000,000
24,952
372,570,005
644
(1/31)
1998
16
995,000,000
14,347
245,971,114
583 as of
(11/30)
11/30
1999
17
1,324,000,000
18,460
237,401,601
677
2000
15
2,139,000,000
38,501
518,583,902
885
(11/30)
2001
15
2,700,000,000
47,108
1,328,471,746 750
2002
13
2,702,000,000
46,799
794,235,696
631
(4/30)
2003
13
2,727,000,000
45,815
651,584,282
518
2004
16
3,645,000,000
64,720
1,160,431,052
429
2005
15
4,737,000,000
70,103
1,161,345,476
387
2006
16
not available
77,002
not available
335
(as of
9/30)

---

CRS-32
Sources of Data in Appendix 3:
Number of Operations
United Nations and Appendix A.
U.N. Costs
Global Policy Forum, New York. At http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/pko/
expendarrears.htm
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
U.N. Personnel
United Nations. Department of Peacekeeping Operations at http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko
Global Policy Forum at http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pcekprs1.htm
U.S. Contributions
U.N. document: Status of Contributions, as of 31 December of any given year,
ST/ADM/SER.B./ — -
U.S. Personnel
U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations at http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko
* Figure is as of December 31,unless highest of year is very different. In 1993, 12/31 figure is 69,961;
in 1994, 12/31 is 69,356. In 1996, 12/31 figure is 24,919; in 1997, 12/31 is 14,879. In 2002, 12/31
figure is 39,652.

---

CRS-33
Appendix 4. U.N. Peacekeeping:
Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions
For Calendar Year 2005 (As of December 31, 2005) (in U.S. dollars)
Payments
in 2005
Arrears as
2005
Outstanding
Name of Operation
(Paid +
of 12/31/04
Assessments
as of 12/31
Credits =
Total)
CURRENT OPERATIONS
UNDOF(Middle East)
9,547,922
11,489,156
11,063,876 +
9,547,922
425,280 CR
= 11,489,156
UNIFIL(Lebanon)
33,944,819
26,145,644
8,698,650 +
49,133,032
2,258,781 CR
= 10,957,431
MINURSO (W. Sahara)
45,757,724
12,560,662
10,992,403 +
46,292,356
1,033,627 CR
= 12,026,030
UNFICYP (Cyprus)
15,046,190
3,695,203
7,369,168 +
11,185,065
187,160 CR =
7,556,328
UNOMIG (Georgia)
5,832,236
9,335,273
9,040,588 +
5,832,236
294,685 CR =
9,335,273
UNAMSIL (Sierra
54,208,472
30,102,575
40,832,296 +
29,051,537
Leone)
14,427,214
CR =
55,259,510
UNMIK (Kosovo)
32,605,948
75,125,888
73,932,842 +
32,605,948
1,193,046 CR
= 75,125,888
UNTAET (E. Timor)
46,970,273
465,631
10,582,746 +
32,031,356
4,821,802 CR
= 15,404,548
MONUC (DR Congo)
109,117,869
421,508,396 284,593,111 +
237,268,962
8,764,192 CR
= 293,357,303
UNMEE
4,617,849
51,668,829
46,281,571 +
4,617,849
(Ethiopia/Eritrea)
5,387,258 CR
= 51,668,829
UNMIL (Liberia)
0
151,468,628 146,922,081 +
0
4,546,547 CR
= 151,468,628
UNOCI (Cote d’Ivoire)
24,607,928
88,081,377 101,458,849 +
7,672,964
3,557,492 CR
= 105,016,341

---

CRS-34
Payments
in 2005
Arrears as
2005
Outstanding
Name of Operation
(Paid +
of 12/31/04
Assessments
as of 12/31
Credits =
Total)
MINUSTAH (Haiti)
48,214,389
96,784,188 133,342,343 +
7,731,806
3,924,428 CR
= 137,266,771
ONUB (Burundi)
52,257,852
51,094,378
90,941,118 +
9,883,508
2,527,604 CR
= 93,468,722
UNMIS (Sudan)
not
252,426,299
131,944,718
120,481,581
applicable
CLOSED OPERATIONS
UNIKOM (Iraq,
4,195,464
not applicable
0
4,195,464
Kuwait)
UNMIBH (Bosnia &
33,825,345
not applicable
0
33,825,345
Herz.)
MONUA (Angola)
34,794,215
not applicable
0
34,794,215
UNPROFOR (former
43,492,191
not applicable
0
43,492,191
Yugoslavia)
UNAMIR (Rwanda)
341,372
not applicable
0
341,372
UNTAC (Cambodia)
11,465,637
not applicable
0
11,465,637
UNTAES (Croatia)
8,699,793
not applicable
0
8,699,793
(includes CPSG)
UNPREDEP
1,232,081
not applicable
0
1,232,081
(Macedonia)
UNTMIH/MIPONUH
19,385,377
not applicable
0
19,385,377
(Haiti)
MINURCA (Central
35,538,048
not applicable
0
35,538,048
African Republic)
UNOSOM II
20,340,516
not applicable
0
20,340,516
ONUMOZ
6,680,111
not applicable
0
6,680.111
(Mozambique)
TOTALS
702,719,621
1,281,952,127
1,107,996,360
823,326,272
+ 53,349,116
CR =
1,161,345,476
Regular Budget
240,520,860
439,611,612
428,280,567
251,851,905
Sources: United Nations. Status of Contributions, as of December 31, 2004, and December
31, 2005.

---

CRS-35
Notes: Total Paid includes $53,349,116 in credits applied to the accounts of current
operations. These credits are from unencumbered balances and applied per resolutions of
the U.N. General Assembly and/or as the contributing member state requests.
The Outstanding columns do not include $ 6,090,877 in contributions outstanding for
UNAMET (E. Timor) and $144,390 in contributions outstanding for MINUGUA
(Guatemala). Both these operations were primarily under the control of the Department of
Political Affairs rather than the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
Credits totaling $17,863,368 were available, as of December 31, 2005, for the United States
for five operations: UNTAG (Namibia): $11,991,064; ONUSAL (El Salvador): $2,677,182;
UNMIH (Haiti): $1,418,861; UNOMIL (Liberia): $883,052; and UNMOT (Tajikistan):
$893,209.
2005 assessments figure is for bills received during CY2005.

---

CRS-36
Appendix 5. U.N. Peacekeeping:
Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions
For Calendar Year 2004 (As of December 31, 2004) (in U.S. dollars)
Payments
in 2004
Arrears as
2004
Outstanding
Name of Operation
(Paid +
of 12/31/03
Assessments
as of 12/31
Credits =
Total)
CURRENT OPERATIONS
UNDOF(Middle East)
9,547,922
11,319,478
10,810,260 +
9,547,922
509,218 CR =
11,319,478
UNIFIL(Lebanon)
43,086,385
27,756,248
12,551,792 +
33,944,819
24,346,022
CR =
36,897,814
MINURSO (W.
41,847,257
15,556,030
10,042,459 +
45,757,724
Sahara)
1,603,104 CR
= 11,645,562
UNFICYP (Cyprus)
11,185,065
10,974,723
6,842,744 +
15,046,190
270,854 CR =
7,113,598
UNOMIG (Georgia)
5,832,236
9,504,531
8,401,568 +
5,832,236
1,102,962 CR
= 9,504,530
UNAMSIL (Sierra
29,051,537
151,213,452 118,726,153 +
54,208,472
Leone)
7,330,364 CR
= 126,056,517
UNMIK (Kosovo)
32,605,948
118,025,210
115,115,953 +
32,605,948
2,909,257 CR
= 118,025,210
UNTAET (E. Timor)
31,853,058
54,813,924
35,769,688 +
46,970,273
3,927,021 CR
= 39,696,709
MONUC (DR Congo)
10,473,943
245,887,340
111,312,570 +
109,117,869
35,930,844 CR
= 147,243,414
UNMEE
4,617,849
67,014,457
60,415,945 +
4,617,849
(Ethiopia/Eritrea)
6,598,512 CR
= 67,014,457
UNMIL (Liberia)
not
380,841,360
380,841,360
0
applicable
not
106,631,162
82,023,234
24,607,928
UNOCI (Cote d’Ivoire)
applicable

---

CRS-37
Payments
in 2004
Arrears as
2004
Outstanding
Name of Operation
(Paid +
of 12/31/03
Assessments
as of 12/31
Credits =
Total)
MINUSTAH (Haiti)
not
107,371,405
59,157,016
48,214,389
applicable
ONUB (Burundi)
not
93,890,282
41,632,430
52,257,852
applicable
CLOSED OPERATIONS
UNIKOM (Iraq,
5,352,181
not applicable 1,156,717 CR
4,195,464
Kuwait)
UNMIBH (Bosnia &
38,359,814
not applicable
4,534,469 CR
33,825,345
Herzegovina)
MONUA (Angola)
41,309,040
not applicable
6,514,825 CR
34,794,215
UNPROFOR (former
45,333,637
not applicable
1,841,446 CR
43,492,191
Yugoslovia)
UNOMIL (Liberia)
1,090,869
not applicable
1,090,869 CR
(883,052)
UNAMIR (Rwanda)
4,257,231
not applicable
3,915,859 CR
341,372
UNMOT (Tajikistan)
219,791
not applicable
219,791 CR
(893,209)
UNTAES (Croatia)
10,713,712
not applicable
2,013,919 CR
8,699,793
(includes CPSG)
UNPREDEP
2,203,908
not applicable
971,827 CR
1,232,081
(“Macedonia”)
UNTMIH and
19,385,377
not applicable
0
19,385,377
MIPONUH (Haiti)
MINURCA (Central
35,538,048
not applicable
0
35,538,048
African Republic)
UNTAC (Cambodia)
11,465,637
not applicable
0
11,465,637
20,340,516
not applicable
0
20,340,516
UNOSOM II (Somalia)
ONUMOZ
6,680,111
not applicable
0
6,680,111
(Mozambique)
TOTALS
497,326,681
1,400,799,282
1,160,431,052
702,719,621
Regular Budget
267,960,871
362,852,996
390,293,007
240,520,860
Sources: United Nations. Status of Contributions, as of December 31, 2003, and December
31, 2004.

---

CRS-38
Notes: Total Paid includes $1,053,643,172 in actual payments and $106,787,880 in credits
applied against outstanding contributions. These credits are from unencumbered balances
and applied per resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly and/or as the contributing
member state requests.

The Outstanding columns do not include $6,090,877 in contributions outstanding for
UNAMET (E. Timor) and $144,390 in contributions outstanding for MINUGUA
(Guatemala). Both these operations were primarily under the control of the Department of
Political Affairs rather than the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
Credits totaling $17,863,368 were available, as of December 31, 2004, for the United States
for five operations: UNTAG (Namibia): $11,991,064; ONUSAL (El Salvador): $2,677,182;
UNMIH (Haiti): $1,418,861; UNOMIL (Liberia): $883,052; and UNMOT (Tajikistan):
$893,209. UNOMIL and UNMOT are listed as credits under Contributions Outstanding,
as of 12/31/04, within parenthesis.
2004 assessments figure is for bills received during CY2004.

---