03/21/2006

Contact: Peter H. Gantz or Katherine Andrews
ri@refugeesinternational.org or 202.828.0110

A growing financial crisis for United Nations peacekeeping is the result of the failure by the United States to appropriate enough money to meet its obligations.  The US shortfall was $145 million in fiscal year 2005, and is around $375 million for the current fiscal year, leaving a total shortfall of approximately $525 million for UN peacekeeping.  The problem is compounded by a US law that limits the US contribution to 25% of total UN peacekeeping costs, even though the US is assessed at slightly over 27%.  The growing financial crisis may have dire consequences for UN peacekeeping efforts around the globe, leading to the possible closure or drastic reduction of certain missions. 

The Bush Administration contends that after elections are held missions can be quickly and significantly downsized. For example, the 2007 budget request assumes that the peace operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) can be cut nearly in half next year. But the DRC remains conflict-ridden and the government exercises little effective control over large parts of this vast country. Experience in numerous countries suggests that elections are but a first step on a long road that may lead to sustainable peace only with sustained help.

The Security Council has rejected the minimalist approach to peacekeeping missions favored by the US.  But when it comes to closing or downsizing missions before such action makes practical sense, the Council has too often bowed to US pressure.  Sierra Leone is still teetering on the edge of state failure, but UN peacekeepers left at the end of 2005. The Ivory Coast is close to civil war, but UN peacekeepers may not stay.  Plans for downsizing in Liberia and Haiti are mandated, even though both will need significant help for years to come.

The Bush Administration had a chance to address the financial shortfall for UN peacekeeping in the FY2006 Emergency Supplemental, but only asked for $68 million, leaving a $450 million hole.  The problem will only grow worse, because the gap between expected UN peacekeeping needs and the funds requested for FY2007 suggest that an additional $400 million shortfall will be created next year.  But beyond fixing the money problem, the US needs to get serious about supporting UN peacekeeping capabilities, developing the right approach to peacekeeping and peacebuilding, and providing the requisite resources to do the job effectively.

The reason for this is simple: UN peacekeeping meets US national interests.  In our hemisphere, Americans may not see a repeat of Haitian boat people reaching the shores of Florida, but the amount of drugs trafficked through Haiti suggests continued chaos there is inimical to US interests. In Europe, while the European Union and NATO could address a crisis there, any extensive involvement would limit their capacity to provide support to operations in other parts of the world, such as contributing to US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. As for Africa, conflicts have too often provided the chaotic environment needed to allow the continent’s plentiful natural resources to be exploited to fund the activities of illegal militias, organized criminal networks and terrorist organizations. This threatens US security and harms the people of Africa.

The US is not alone in shortchanging UN peacekeeping. Lack of support from industrialized countries is chronic. UN peacekeeping is the world's attempt to use a bargain solution for a complex problem, and the world is getting what it is paying for. Troops and police from over a dozen countries may be thrown together and expected to deal with the complexities of a civil war and state failure.  Overstretched resources limit joint training, the availability of compatible equipment, support for logistics, communications, and intelligence, and the possibility of instilling common doctrine among the troops.

At UN headquarters, fewer than a thousand people support over 60,000 troops, plus an additional 25,000 police and other civilians, deployed in UN peacekeeping operations. The UN must cooperate with other international organizations, various national agencies, and dozens of nongovernmental organizations in most of these missions.  The system is badly overstrained.  The inability to effectively oversee peacekeeping missions results in many avoidable problems, not least sexual abuse by peacekeepers and fraud and waste in procurement.

Yet even in the face of such challenges, UN peacekeeping does good things. A 2005 report from the RAND Corporation comparing UN and US histories of conflict intervention found the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) more capable and --- even given its perennially strained resources --- more efficient at instilling peace.  A 2006 General Accounting Office (GAO) study suggested that the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force can be up to eight times less expensive than funding a US force to do the same job (because the UN is half as expensive and the U.S. only pays a quarter of the costs). 

UN peacekeeping, even in its current flawed state, is a national security bargain for the US.  In fact, Administration officials, including Secretary of State Rice, have lauded the value of UN peacekeeping, stating, in Secretary Rice’s words, that it “is much more cost effective than using American forces.” Yet even at bargain rates, the US is not providing adequate funding to the UN for peacekeeping costs.

Refugees International therefore recommends that:

• The US Congress fully fund US obligations for UN peacekeeping by providing $500 million for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account in the FY2006 Emergency Supplemental and an additional $400 million for the CIPA account in the FY2007 budget.