Peacekeeping Options: Considerations for U.S. Policymakers and the Congress

This document also available in PDF Image . As recent international efforts to quell instability in many troubled nations have reached mixed or ambiguous outcomes, many Members of Congress wish to reexamine the tools available to the United States to address the problem. Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has been the world's primary instrument for international response to instability and for international efforts to achieve peace. But the 1990s expansion of U.N. peacekeeping activities, both in number and in scope, resulted in some operations which were perceived as mismanaged, ineffective, and costly. Concerned about the U.N.'s ability to carry out such operations effectively, many policymakers have begun to explore the possibilities of strengthening the United Nations or employing other organizations to help achieve peace. In recent years, the United Nations, non-governmental and humanitarian organizations (NGOs), and regional organizations have increasingly supplemented each other's peace and security activities. The United States, and other nations, have organized "ad hoc" multilateral groups or coalitions (organized under the U.N. or regional aegis) when greater flexibility or speed of action was desired. Within the last few years, commercial firms contracted by the United States have also been brought into peace operations. While these public, private, and "ad hoc" organizations all play a role in peace operations, the United Nations is uniquely active along the entire "conflict" continuum, from situations of potential hostilities to post-conflict situations. Except for a few in Europe, regional organizations are largely unequipped, structurally and financially, to effectively perform a wide variety of peace operations. (Regional organizations in Europe currently play a larger part in conflictive and other problem situations than regional organizations elsewhere.) NGOs have tended to concentrate on prevention activities, refugee resettlement, and post-conflict development. Private firms have been used to supplement U.S. and U.N. personnel in a few recent operations. Most analysts would conclude that containing conflict at the lowest possible level is most cost-effective, but the relative costs and effectiveness of using these different organizations appear still unclear. A wide variety of circumstances can influence whether an organization is appropriate to use and able to prevent, contain or settle a conflict. No one organization or type of organization is seen as capable of providing, by itself, the necessary coverage in all situations. There are implications for U.S. interests, for the budget, for U.S. diplomacy, and for the U.S. military in the use and mix of each of these types of organization.