United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress

United Nations Peacekeeping:
Issues for Congress
Updated November 13, 2008
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

United Nations Peacekeeping:
Issues for Congress
Summary
A major issue facing the United Nations, the United States, and the 110^th
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 21^st 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 serves as a tracking report for action by Congress on United Nations
peacekeepi n g.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................2
Current Funding Situation...........................................3
Fiscal Year 2009..............................................3
Fiscal Year 2008..............................................5
Fiscal Year 2007 Supplemental...................................7
Fiscal Year 2007..............................................9
U.N. Peacekeeping: Funding Assessed Contributions —
FY2007-FY2009 ..........................................9
The Peacekeeping Assessment Cap ..............................11
Notifications to Congress.......................................14
Basic Information.................................................14
U.S. Provision of Personnel.....................................17
Other Peacekeeping Issues......................................18
A Peacekeeping Response to International Humanitarian Distress...18
The Role of U.N. Peacekeeping in Monitoring Elections..........19
U.S. Financing for U.N. Peacekeeping............................20
U.N. Proposals for Strengthening Peacekeeping.........................21
Agenda for Peace (1992).......................................21
Brahimi Panel Report (2000)....................................23
Prince Zeid Report (2005)......................................24
Reorganization and Restructuring (2007)..........................27
The United States and Peacekeeping Proposals..........................29
Congress and United Nations Peacekeeping: 1991-2006..................31
Overview ...................................................31
List of Tables
Table 1. U.N. Peacekeeping-Assessed Contributions FY2007 Allocations
and FY2008 and FY2009 Requests...............................10
Table 2. U.N. Peacekeeping Assessment Levels for the United States, Calendar
Years 1992-2009.............................................11
Table 3. U.S. Military Personnel Under U.N. Control as of November 30,
1995 .......................................................17
Table 4. U.S. Personnel Under U.N. Control as of September 30, 2008......18
Table 5. U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping as Requested and
Enacted, FY1988-FY2006......................................31
Appendix A. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: A Chronological List.........39
Appendix B. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: Numbers Created Annually,

1948-2008 ..................................................42

for Comparative Analysis, 1978-2008.............................45
Appendix D. U.N. Peacekeeping: Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions for
Calendar Year 2006...........................................47
Appendix E. U.N. Peacekeeping: Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions for
Calendar Year 2005...........................................50
Appendix F. U.N. Peacekeeping: Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions for
Calendar Year 2004...........................................53

United Nations Peacekeeping:
Issues for Congress
Most Recent Developments
On February 4, 2008, the President, in his budget for FY2009, requested
$1,497,000,000 for U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operation assessed
accounts in the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)
account, Department of State. He requested $247,200,000 in voluntary contributions
for the FY2009 Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account. He also requested
authority to pay up to 27.1% in contributions for any U.N. peacekeeping operation
assessments received from calendar years 2005 through 2009.
On May 2, 2008, the President sent Congress an amendment to his FY2009
budget, requesting for the PKO account an additional $60 million, to fund U.S.
assistance to international efforts to monitor and maintain peace in Somalia and
Democratic Republic of Congo. This brings the FY2009 PKO request to
$307,200,000.
On June 30, 2008, the President signed H.R. 2642, the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252), which included supplemental funding for
U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts in the CIPA account, Department
of State, for both FY2008 and FY2009 and supplemental funding for the PKO
account for FY2009.
On July 18, 2008, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 3288,
the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
bill, 2009. The committee provided $1,650,000,000 for the CIPA account and
$257,200,000 to the PKO account. The committee also recommended raising the
peacekeeping assessments cap from 25% to 27.1% for assessments received during
CY2005 through 2009. The Senate did not consider S. 3288. On July 16, 2008, the
State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
approved its FY2009 bill, which was never published or taken up by the full
committee.
On September 30, 2008, the President signed H.R. 2638, Division A of which
was the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, extending funding at FY2008¹
levels through March 6, 2009. It is anticipated that the funds available for CIPA
total $525,800,000.

¹ P.L. 110-329.

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.² This U.S. decision was accompanied by a Security Council
statement adopting similar criteria.
If the trends between 1978 and 2007 (see Appendix C) 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. As of December 31, 2007, there were 17 U.N.
peacekeeping operations.
^!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 2005.³
^!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. As of December
31, 2007, the number of uniformed personnel in U.N. peacekeeping
operations totaled 84,309.

² See text at [http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm].
³ These figures are taken from Peacekeeping Operations Expenditures: 1947-2005, a table
compiled by Michael Renner (Senior Researcher, Worldwatch Institute and Global Policy
Forum), found at [http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/pko/expend.htm].

^!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, $1.1 billion in CY2005, and $1.1 billion in
CY2006.
^!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
December 31, 2007, 316 U.S. personnel served in seven operations.
Current Funding Situation
Fiscal Year 2009
On February 4, 2008, the President, in his budget for FY2009, requested
$1,497,000,000 for U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operation assessed
accounts in the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities account
(CIPA). This included $31,000,000 for U.S.-assessed contributions to the two war
crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not peacekeeping operations.
Bush also requested $247,200,000 for the FY2009 Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)
account. This account finances, inter alia, U.S. contributions to the Multilateral
Force and Observers (MFO), a non-U.N. peacekeeping operation, and other U.S.
support of regional and international peacekeeping efforts. The MFO implements
and monitors the provisions of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979 and its 1981
protocol, in the Sinai. On May 2, 2008, the President sent Congress an amendment
to his FY2009 budget, requesting for the PKO account an additional $60 million, to
fund U.S. assistance to international efforts to monitor and maintain peace in Somalia
and Democratic Republic of Congo. This brought the FY2009 PKO request to
$307,200,000.
In February 2008, the President also requested authority to pay up to 27.1% of
the cost of any U.N. peacekeeping operation assessments received from calendar year
2005 through calendar year 2009. The Administration noted that the U.S.-assessed
share of U.N. peacekeeping accounts has “been reduced in recent years from well
over 27 percent for assessments made in 2005 to just under 26 percent for
assessments received in 2008 and 2009.” The Administration request was made “in
order to allow for the payment of peacekeeping assessments at the rates assessed by

the United Nations, including amounts withheld because of the statutory cap limited
payments to 25 percent of UN peacekeeping costs from 2005 through 2007....”⁴
On June 30, 2008, the President signed H.R. 2642, the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252), which included supplemental funding for
U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts in the CIPA account, Department
of State, for both FY2008 and FY2009 and supplemental funding for the PKO
account for FY2009. Subchapter A, of Chapter 4 — Department of State and
Foreign Operations — was titled Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008.
Under the CIPA account, $373,708,000 was appropriated, to remain available until
September 30, 2009, of which $333,600,000 “shall” be for the U.N.-African Union
Hybrid Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). The $40,108,000 difference was “to meet
unmet fiscal year 2008 assessed dues for the international peacekeeping missions to
countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Haiti,
Liberia, and Sudan.”⁵
Subchapter B, of Chapter 4 was titled Bridge Fund Supplemental
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009. Congress appropriated an additional
$150,500,000 for the CIPA account, which shall become available on October 1,
2008, and remain available through September 30, 2009; and an additional amount
for the PKO account of $95,000,000, which shall become available on October 1,
2008, and remain available through September 30, 2009. This additional PKO
money would not be used to finance U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
assessed accounts.⁶
On July 18, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3288, the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2009. The committee recommended $1,650,000,000 in FY2009 appropriations to
the CIPA account, an amount that was $153,000,000 above the President’s request.
This was in addition to the $150,500,000 provided in Bridge Funding for FY2009 in
P.L. 110-252. The committee noted “that the budget request for U.S. assessed
contributions to international peacekeeping missions assumed a reduction in the cost
of every mission below the fiscal year 2008 operating level.... The Committee
recognizes the significant contribution to international peace and stability provided
by U.N. peacekeeping activities, without the participation of U.S. troops. The
Committee does not support OMB’s practice of under-funding peacekeeping
activities and relying on limited supplemental funds to support only a few missions.”⁷
The committee bill included language, as requested by the President, to “adjust
the authorized level of U.S. assessments for peacekeeping activities for calendar year

2009 and prior years from 25 percent to 27.1 percent, consistent with the level set in

⁴ U.S. Department of State. Congressional Budget Justification. Fiscal Year 2009, p. 757.
Found at [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100326.pdf].
⁵ Congressional Record [daily edition], June 19, 2008: H5676.
⁶ Congressional Record [daily edition], June 19, 2008: H5680.
⁷ S.Rept. 110-425, pages 23-24.

fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 110-161).” The committee expected “that future budget
requests shall include sufficient funding to support such authorization.”⁸
The committee report also included the following:
The Committee directs the Department of State to seek to ensure that all
peacekeepers, civilian police, and other United Nations personnel being trained
and equipped with funds contributed by the United States in preparation for
deployment as part of peacekeeping missions, receive proper training to prevent
and respond to violence against women and girls. The Secretary of State should
work aggressively with the United Nations to ensure that individuals who are
found to have engaged in exploitation or violence against women are held⁹
accountable, including prosecution in their home countries.
S. 3288 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar but was not considered on the
Senate floor.
On July 16, 2008, the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee approved its FY2009 bill, which was sent to the full
committee. The subcommittee recommendation was never issued as a bill.
On September 30, 2008, the President signed H.R. 2638, the Consolidated
Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, into law as
P.L. 110-329. Division A of the Act, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2009, provided appropriations for nine regular appropriations for FY2009, through
March 6, 2009, at FY2008 spending levels, as apportioned by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).¹⁰ According to the State Department, the funds
available for the CIPA during this period are $525,800,000. Funds available for the
PKO account during this period total $97,366,613.
Fiscal Year 2008
On February 5, 2007, the Bush Administration requested, in its FY2008 budget,
$1,107,000,000 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 included $34,181,000 for the two war crimes
tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) that are not peacekeeping operations.¹¹ Bush also
requested $221,200,000 in voluntary contributions for the FY2008 Peacekeeping
Operations (PKO) account to finance, inter alia, U.S. contributions to the Multilateral
Force and Observers (MFO), a non-U.N. operation, and other U.S. support of
regional and international peacekeeping efforts. The MFO implements and monitors

⁸ S.Rept. 110-425, pages 23-24.
⁹ S.Rept. 110-425, page 23.
¹⁰ According to OMB Bulletin No. 08-02, dated September 30, 2008, the percentage of the
year covered by the CR is 43.01 percent..
¹¹ Each of these tribunals is funded from both the CIPA account and the Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) account. See CRS Report RL33611, United Nations
System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne and Kennon H. Nakamura.

the provisions of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979 and its 1981 protocol, in
the Sinai.
On June 18, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended
$1,302,000,000 for the CIPA account and $293,200,000 for the PKO account.¹² It
included language setting the peacekeeping assessment cap at 27.1% for calendar
year 2008. ¹³ The committee, in recommending funding for CIPA at $195 million
above the Administration’s request, expressed “concern”
[t]hat the Administration has not adequately planned for funding International
Peacekeeping activities. Committee analysis has concluded that the
Administration’s budget request in fiscal year 2008 for CIPA is a cut of 3 percent
below the fiscal year 2007 level and that all missions except UNMIS are taking
a reduction in the President’s request. The Committee continues to inquire as to
the rationale used by the Secretary of State when requesting $28,275,000 below
the fiscal year 2007 level in the CIPA account. The Committee is concerned that
peacekeeping missions could be adversely affected if the requested fiscal year
2008 funding level is enacted. The Committee notes that in the last year the
Administration has voted for: a seven-fold expansion of the UN’s peacekeeping
mission in Lebanon; the expansion of the UN’s peacekeeping mission in Darfur;
reauthorization of the UN’s peacekeeping mission in Haiti; and a renewed¹⁴
peacekeeping mission in East Timor.
The committee noted that some non-governmental organizations and outside experts
have estimated that the U.S. debt to U.N. peacekeeping operations might reach $1
billion if funding is not increased and if additional projected peacekeeping operations
are created. “The Committee is concerned that these debts are preventing the UN
from paying the countries that provide troops for UN peacekeeping missions and will
likely significantly impact India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.” The House, in passing
H.R. 2764, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2008, on June 22, 2007, approved the committee’s
recommendations for funding and for the peacekeeping assessment cap.
On July 10, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2764,
recommending $1,352,000,000 for the CIPA account and $273,200,000 for the PKO
account.¹⁵ The committee recommendation for CIPA is $245 million above the
President’s request but, according to the committee, “still $66,275,000 below
projected current requirements for U.S. contributions to peacekeeping.” The
committee continued, “the request was unrealistic considering the significant
contribution to peace and stability provided by U.N. peacekeeping activities, without
the participation of U.S. troops.... The Committee does not support the
administration’s practice of under-funding peacekeeping activities and relying on
limited supplemental funds.” The committee included language to “adjust the
authorized level of U.S. assessments for peacekeeping activities for fiscal year 2008

¹² H.Rept. 110-197, p. 32-35, and 127-130.
¹³ H.R. 2764, as reported, sec. 684.
¹⁴ H.Rept. 110-197, p. 33.
¹⁵ S.Rept. 110-128, p. 19-20 and 67-68.

from 25 percent to 27.1 percent.” (Section 113 of the reported bill stipulated for
“assessments made during calendar year 2008, 27.1 percent.”) On September 6,
2007, the Senate passed H.R. 2764, providing the committee-recommended funding
for the CIPA and PKO accounts and the increased peacekeeping assessment cap for
CY2008.
On October 22, 2007, President Bush sent to Congress amendments to his
FY2008 budget request in a FY2008 Supplemental that included an additional
$723,600,000 for the CIPA account to remain available until September 30, 2009.
This amount, designated as “emergency requirements,” would fund the U.S. share of
the start-up, infrastructure, and operating costs of the new U.N. peacekeeping
operation in Darfur (UNAMID).
On December 19, 2007, Congress passed and sent to the President H.R. 2764,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Division J of which provided funding
for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act, 2008.
The President signed the bill on December 26, 2007 (P. L. 110-161). The bill
included across-the-board rescissions. The estimated figure after application of the
rescission is provided in brackets. The bill provided $1,700,500,000
[$1,690,517,000] for CIPA, of which $468,000,000 was designated emergency, for
U.S. contributions to UNAMID. The President had, for FY2008, requested a total
of $1,830,600,000 for the CIPA account, $723,600,000 of which was designated an
emergency requirement.
Congress included, for the PKO account, $263,230,000 [$261,381,000],
including not less than $25 million for the U.S. contribution to the MFO in the Sinai.
This also included $35 million designated as emergency. The President had
requested $221,200,000 in funds for the PKO account for FY2008.¹⁶
Fiscal Year 2007 Supplemental
The President also requested on February 5, 2007, FY2007 supplemental
funding for CIPA and for PKO. The CIPA supplemental request of $200 million was
to pay U.S. contributions for “unforeseen” U.N. peacekeeping expenses: $184
million for the expanded force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and $16 million for the U.N.
operation in Timor Leste (UNMIT). The PKO supplemental request of $278 million
was to support peacekeeping efforts in Darfur through the African Union Mission in
Sudan (AMIS) — $150 million — and support peacekeeping needs in Chad and
Somalia — $128 million. The request stipulated that up to $128 million of the total
may be transferred to CIPA, for assessed costs of U.N. peacekeeping operations.
“The requested transfer authority would provide the flexibility to fund either a United
Nations peacekeeping mission to Chad and Somalia or to support the efforts of
African regional security organizations such as the African Union.”¹⁷

¹⁶ The FY2008 Emergency Supplemental request did not include additional funds for the
PKO account.
¹⁷ The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008; Appendix volume, p. 1172

On March 23, 2007, the House passed H.R. 1591, Making Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2007, which provided $288,000,000 for the
CIPA account and $225,000,000 for the PKO account, but without the authority to
transfer up to $128 million from the PKO to the CIPA account.¹⁸ On March 22,
2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 965, recommending $200
million for the CIPA account and $323 million for the PKO account and including
the authority to transfer up to $128 million to the CIPA account. The PKO section
also included a requirement that not less than $45 million shall be made available for
assistance for Liberia, for security sector reform.¹⁹ On March 29, 2007, the Senate
passed its amendment to H.R. 1591, with these reported provisions on the CIPA and
PKO accounts unchanged. On April 24, 2007, a conference report on H.R. 1591 was
filed, providing $288 million for the CIPA account and $230 million for PKO, of
which $40 million would be available for Liberia. There was no transfer authority
language. H.R. 1591 was cleared for the White House on April 26, 2007, and, on
May 1, was vetoed by the President because of Iraq-related language. Action to
override the veto failed on May 2, 2007.
On May 25, 2007, Congress sent to the President H.R. 2206, a FY2007
emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which the President signed the same day
(P.L. 110-28). This bill, cited as the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, included $283,000,000
for CIPA, to remain available until September 30, 2008; $190,000,000 for PKO, to
remain available until September 30, 2008; and $40,000,000 for PKO, to remain
available until September 30, 2008, provided that these funds “shall be made
available, notwithstanding section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for
assistance for Liberia for security sector reform.”²⁰
H.R. 2206 referred to the joint explanatory statement in the conference report
on H.R. 1591 (H.Rept. 110-107) for directives and other information for expenditure
of these funds. Thus, for CIPA, the conferees specified $184 million for UNIFIL
(Lebanon), $16 million for the U.N. Mission in Timor Leste, and $88 million for a
potential operation in Chad. If funds are not obligated for a U.N. mission in Chad
by August 15, 2007, the conferees asked the State Department to consult with the
appropriations committees “on the funding needs for other priority missions” within
CIPA. It should be noted that H.R. 1591 provided $288 million for CIPA, whereas
H.R. 2206 provided $283 mission for CIPA. H.R. 2206 provided funds for the PKO
account in two separate sections that together totaled the amount provided in H.R.

1591.

¹⁸ H.Rept. 110-60, pp. 196-197, 205-206. The CIPA account included $184 million for
UNIFIL, $16 million for UNMIT, and $88 million for a potential Chad mission. The PKO
account included $40 million for Somalia, $150 million for the AU operation in Sudan
(AMIS), and $35 million for security sector reform in Liberia.
¹⁹ S.Rept. 110-37 and S. 965, p. 37, 44-45.
²⁰ For further background, see CRS Report RL33185, Liberia’s Post-War Recovery: Key
Issues and Developments, by Nicolas Cook.

Fiscal Year 2007
On February 6, 2006, the Bush Administration had 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 included $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.
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. This was $113,052,000 over the
amount provided for FY2006, in regular appropriations. 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.²¹ The Senate did not act on this bill in the 109^th
Congress.
On February 15, 2007, the President signed H.J.Res. 20, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, which amended the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution 2007 (P. L. 109-289, division B), as amended by P.L. 109-369 and P.L.
109-283, to extend through September 30, 2007. P.L. 110-5 included specific figures
for the CIPA account ($1,135,275,00) and the PKO account ($223,250,000), of
which not less than $50 million should be provided for peacekeeping operations in
Sudan.
U.N. Peacekeeping: Funding Assessed Contributions —
FY2007-FY2009
Table 1 shows FY2007 allocations, the FY2008 request and appropriation
estimates, and the FY2009 request. (Table 5 shows FY1988-FY2006 data.)

²¹ S.Rept. 109-277.

Table 1. U.N. Peacekeeping-Assessed Contributions
FY2007 Allocations and FY2008 and FY2009 Requests
(in millions of $)
^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁹
^Operation^Allo^ca^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^Request^E^s^ti^m^a^tes^Request
^{UNDOF (Israel-}^S^y^r^ia)⁹^.3⁵³⁸^.⁶⁷³¹⁰^.⁷⁹⁰⁷^.⁶⁶⁰
^U^N^I^F^I^L^(L^eban^on⁾^309.266^a^167.667^243.972^186.400
^MIN^U^R^S^O^(W.S^ah^ara)^8.924^9.065^12.047^8.400
^U^N^M^IK^(K^os^ov^o)^83.778^19.288^26.855^—
^U^N^F^IC^Y^P^(C^y^p^ru^s⁾^6.482^5.069^6.416^4.540
^{UNOMIG (Geo}^rg^ia)⁷^.9⁹⁵⁷^.²⁶⁵¹⁰^.⁰⁸²⁷^.⁴⁰⁰
^U^N^M^IT^{(E. T}ⁱ^m^o^r)^76.389^b^12.345^46.876^34.500
^MONUC^(C^on^g^o⁾^317.834^168.903^284.661^210.000
^U^N^M^{EE (Et}^hⁱ^opi^a/^Eri^t^r^ea)^30.020^23.146^34.424^26.000
^U^N^M^IL^(Lⁱ^b^eri^a⁾^177.214^110.188^179.700^123.400
^ONUB^(B^u^r^uⁿ^dⁱ⁾¹⁵^.⁵⁸⁸⁰^.⁰⁰⁰⁰^.⁰⁰⁰⁰^.⁰⁰⁰
^U^N^M^IS^(S^u^d^an⁾^252.136^c^391.070^241.638^208.900
^UNOC^{I (C}^{ote d’}^Iv^oire)^158.809^55.242^120.007^81.000
^MINUST^A^{H (Haiti)}^86.530^94.889^145.822^114.400
^U^N^A^MID^(D^arf^u^r)^—^.-^884.000^414.000
^MIN^U^R^C^A^T^(C^h^a^d)^—^.-^83.000^h^39.400
^S^u^bt^ot^al^s¹^,103.206^d^1,072.819^1,356.834ⁱ^1,466.000
^{War cri}^m^es^t^rⁱ^b^uⁿ^a^l^s^41.234^34.181^42.919^31.000
^Suppl^em^ent^a^l^283.000^e^723.600^g^468.000^j
^TO^TA^LS^1,418.275^f^1,830.000^1,690.517^k^1,497.000
^{a. In}^clu^d^es^{$184 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^e^U.S.^T^r^{oop R}^eadin^es^s^,^Veteran^s^’^C^a^{re, Katrin}^{a R}^ecov^e^ry^{, an}^{d Iraq}
^A^ccouⁿ^t^ability^A^ppropriation^s^A^c^{t, 2007 (P}^.L^{. 110-}^{28), h}^e^reaf^{ter ref}^e^{rred to as}^th^{e FY2007}
^Su^pplem^en^tal.
^{b. In}^clu^d^es^{$16 m}^illion^f^r^om^{FY2007 Su}^pplem^en^tal.
^{c. In}^clu^d^es^{$129 m}^illion^f^r^om^{FY2006 Su}^pplem^en^tal.
^{d. In}^clu^d^es^{$129 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^{e FY2006 Su}^pplem^en^{tal an}^{d $200 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷
^Su^pplem^en^tal.
^{e. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^appropriatedⁱⁿ^FY2007^Su^pplem^en^tal:^{$184 m}^illion^f^o^{r UNIFIL}^;^{$16 m}^illion^f^o^{r UNMIT}^;
^an^{d $83 m}^illion^f^o^{r poten}^{tial operation}ⁱⁿ^C^h^{ad. .}
^f^.^F^Y^{2007 A}^c^t^u^al^of^$1,418.275ⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal of}^{$283 m}^illion^.
^g^.^On^{October 22, 2007, th}^{e P}^r^es^iden^{t requ}^es^{ted $723.6 m}^illioⁿ^fo^r^C^I^P^Aⁱⁿ^{FY2008 em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^sup^p^l^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^l^fundⁱ^{ng fo}^r^U^.^S.^a^sse^sse^d^c^o^nt^rⁱ^b^u^tⁱ^o^{ns t}^o^U^N^A^M^I^D^.
^h^.^F^r^om^F^Y^{2007 S}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^(P.L^{. 110-}^28).
^{i. In}^clu^d^es^{$83 m}^illion^f^r^om^{FY2007 Su}^pplem^en^tal.
^j^.^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed $468 i}ⁿ^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^sⁱⁿ^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^ed^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,^{2008, D}ⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^on
^J:^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^S^t^at^{e, F}^o^rei^gⁿ^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d Prog}^ram^s^A^c^t^,^{2008 (P.L}^{. 110-}^161).
^k^.^T^h^{e total appropriated in}^clu^d^es^application^of^{$266.092 m}^illionⁱⁿ^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^(res^c^is^sⁱ^on^s⁾^.

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.
Table 2. U.N. Peacekeeping Assessment Levels
for the United States, Calendar Years 1992-2009
U.N.Recognized byU.N.Recognized by
Year Assessment U.S. Y e ar Assessment U.S.

199230.387%30.4%200128.134%25% // 28.15%^a

(30.4%)(28.13%)

1993 31.739% 30.4% 2002 27.3477% 27.90%

(31.7%)(27.35%)

1994 31.735% 30.4% 2003 26.927% 27.40%

(31.7%)(26.93%)

199531.151%30.4%; Oct. 1:200426.690%27.40%

(31.2%) 25% (26.69%)

1996 30.965% 25% 2005 26.4987% 27.1%

(30.9%)(26.5%)

1997 30.862% 25% 2006 26.6901% 25%

(30.9%)(26.7%)

1998 30.5324% 25% 2007 26.0864% 25%

(30.5%)(26.08%)

1999 30.3648% 25% 2008 25.9624% 27.1%

(30.4%)(25.9%)
2000 30.2816% 25% 2009 25.9624% TBD
(30.3%)(25.9%)
a. 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.”²² 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 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 made in CY2006. On March 10, 2005, the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations had reported S. 600, the Foreign Affairs
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. Section 401, Limitation on the
United States share of assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations,
would have set a permanent ceiling of 27.1% on U.S. payments to U.N. peacekeeping
accounts (S.Rept. 109-37, p. 16-17). During Senate floor consideration of S. 600,
Committee chair Senator Richard Lugar proposed an amendment (S.Amdt. 266) to
strike this provision from the bill. He maintained that passing a permanent ceiling
of 27.1% at that time might reduce U.S. leverage in negotiating toward the U.S. goal
of 25% as an assessment rate for its U.N. peacekeeping contributions. Senator
Joseph Biden introduced a “second degree amendment” (S.Amdt. 286) that would
keep the then current rate of 27.1% for the next two calendar years: “For assessments
made during calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007, 27.1 percent.” This amendment,
Senator Biden maintained, would put into place the language the President asked for
in his FY2006 budget request. On April 6, 2005, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 286
and agreed to S.Amdt. 266, dropping section 401, that would have instituted 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 for FY2007 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

²² Holbrooke, Richard C. Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations. Prepared Statement, January 9, 2001. In U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on^th^st
Foreign Relations. A Report on the United Nations Reforms. Hearing, 107 Congress, 1
Session, January 9, 2001. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001. (S.
Hrg. 107-15) p. 15-19.

on October 5, 2006, for his signature.²³ Thus, at the start of the 110^th Congress, the
cap on funds available for U.S. assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts
remained at 25%.
On January 25, 2007, Senator Biden introduced S. 392, “to ensure payment of
United States assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005
through 2008 time period.” It would amend the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236) to add “For assessments made
during calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, 27.1 percent.” President Bush’s
FY2008 budget request, released February 5, 2007, included identical legislative
language. Both provisions were to be added to Section 404 (b)(2)(B) of P.L. 103-

236, as amended. Senator Biden’s bill also contained a “conforming amendment”

that “Section 411 of the Department of State and Related Agency Appropriations
Act, 2005 (title IV of division B of Public Law 108-447; 22 U.S.C. 287e note) is
repeal ed.”
On July 16, 2007, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 392,
without amendment favorably.²⁴ The committee report noted that the legislation “is
designed to allow the United States to fully pay its dues to U.N. peacekeeping
operations, pay arrears that have accumulated since January 2006, and ensure that no
additional arrears accrue in 2007 and 2008.” The Congressional Budget Office, in
its cost estimate noted,
Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that by raising
the cap, the bill would allow the department to pay the U.N. an additional $157
million — $65 million for 2006 arrears, $48 million for the 2007 arrears, and $44
million for 2008 arrears (the department’s request for 2008, based on the
statutory cap of 25 percent, has not yet been appropriated.) CBO estimates that
the department would pay the U.N. $126 million in 2008 and $31 million in 2009
under the bill, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts and that outlays²⁵
will follow historical spending or receipts.
The Senate did not act on S. 392. The Omnibus Appropriations Act, Division J,
included language setting the peacekeeping assessment cap at 27.1% for assessments
made in 2008.
The President, in his FY2009 budget, requested authority to pay up to 27.1% of
the cost of any U.N. peacekeeping operation assessments received from calendar year
2005 through calendar year 2009. This request was supported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee in S. 3288, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2009.

²³ U.S. Congress. House. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 5122. H.Rept. 109-702
(109^th Congress, 2nd session), p. 826.
²⁴ S.Rept. 110-130.
²⁵ Ibid., p. 3.

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.
In addition, the Committees on Appropriations and other appropriate
committees are to be notified that the United Nations has acted to prevent U.N.
employees, contractor personnel, and peacekeeping forces serving in any U.N.
peacekeeping mission from trafficking in persons, exploiting victims of trafficking,
or committing acts of illegal sexual exploitation, and to hold accountable individuals
who engage in such acts while participating in the peacekeeping mission.²⁶ An older
notification requirement is that funds shall be available for peacekeeping expenses
only upon a certification by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committees that
American manufacturers and suppliers are being given opportunities to provide
equipment, services, and material for U.N. peacekeeping activities equal to those
being given to foreign manufacturers and suppliers.
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.²⁷
The U.N. Security Council normally establishes peacekeeping operations in
keeping with certain basic principles, which include agreement and continuing

²⁶ Added in Department of State Appropriations Act, 2006, Title IV of P.L. 109-108 (H.R.

2862), November 22, 2005 [119 Stat. 2323]. This report is sent to Congress on a semi-

annual basis.
²⁷ 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.

support by the Security Council; agreement by the parties to the conflict and consent
of the host government(s); unrestricted access and freedom of movement by the
operation within the countries of operation and within the parameters of its mandate;
provision of personnel on a voluntary basis by U.N. members; 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.
When the U.N. Security Council establishes a U.N.-conducted peacekeeping
operation, its resolution also specifies how the operation will be funded. In most
instances, this is by a special assessed account to be created by the U.N. General
Assembly. Under the U.N. Charter, the General Assembly approves the budget and
expenses of the organization; this includes U.N. peacekeeping operations. Each
operation has a separate budget that is financed from a separate assessed account. In
1994, the Assembly decided that the financial period for each operation would be
changed from January through December to July 1 to June 30. As U.N. peacekeeping
operations grew in number and complexity, the Assembly found it required a longer
period of time to consider the budgets of each operation and other agenda items
associated with United Nations peacekeeping.²⁸
Since 1948, the United Nations has established 63 peacekeeping operations, 16
of which are currently active. A review of the data in Appendix B, “U.N.
Peacekeeping Operations: Numbers Created Annually, 1948-2008,” 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.

²⁸ See How is UN peacekeeping financed? and Peacekeeping budgets at
[http://www.un.org/ga/fifth/pkofinancing.shtml]. Link to Assembly Resolution 49/233 A
(December 22, 1994) is available under Peacekeeping budgets. A new session of the
Assembly starts in September of each year and meets daily through mid to late December.
Most of the issues on the Assembly’s agenda are considered and acted on during this three-
month period, usually referred to as the main part of the session. Peacekeeping items are,
for the most part, considered the following May.

Current United Nations statistics on U.N. peacekeeping often refer to higher
numbers of operations and personnel than are provided in the paragraph above. For
example, the February 2007 report of the Secretary-General on implementation of
recommendations of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, in referring
to a “surge in United Nations peacekeeping,” noted that “as 2006 drew to a close,
almost 100,000 men and women were deployed in 18 peace operations around the
world, of which approximately 82,000 were troops, police, and military observers
provided by contributing countries. Those figures are set to increase further in 2007,
with the completion of deployments currently under way ... and the prospect of new
United Nations peace operations being established, whether United Nations
peacekeeping missions or special political missions.” He continued, “In parallel, the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations has increased its administrative and logistics
support to special political missions managed by the Department of Political Affairs,
and is currently supporting 15 such field offices. More recently, it has become
increasingly engaged in assisting regional actors to develop their peacekeeping
capabilities, in particular providing substantial support to the African Union Mission
in the Sudan (AMIS).”²⁹
The use of the term “peace operations” in this context can be tracked back to the
Brahimi Panel report (see “Brahimi Panel Report [2000],” below). Peace operations
might be seen and identified within the overall context of the Charter role of the U.N.
Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security (see Article
24 of the Charter), with U.N. peacekeeping being only one element or component of
the array of responses the Council might employ. U.N. peace operations, as defined
in the Brahimi Report, “entail three principal activities: conflict prevention and
peacemaking; peacekeeping; and peace-building.”³⁰ The numbers used when
referring to the numbers of personnel involved in peace operations as compared with
the numbers of personnel involved in U.N. peacekeeping operations can derive from
two different aspects:
(1) U.N. peacekeeping operations data generally tracks the numbers of uniformed
personnel provided by U.N. member states and does not include the numbers of
civilians in those operations, either recruited locally or those internationally recruited.
These increasingly larger numbers of civilians are included in data tracking the
numbers of personnel in peace operations.
(2) As reflected in the data, the number of currently deployed peacekeeping
operations, 17, as of June 30, 2008, differs from the number of peace operations, 20,
which includes three peace operations — UNAMA, in Afghanistan, and the two
peacebuilding missions in Sierra Leone and Burundi: UNIOSIL and BINUB.³¹

²⁹ United Nations. Implementation of the recommendations of the Special Committee on
Peacekeeping Operations. Report of the Secretary-General. New York, United Nations,

2007. U.N. document A/61/668, p. 3.

³⁰ U.N. document A/55/305-S/2000/809, p. 2, para. 10.
³¹ UNAMA is U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan; UNIOSIL is the U.N. Integrated
Office in Sierra Leone, and BINUB is the U.N. Integrated Office in Burundi. See United
Nations Peacekeeping Operations Fact Sheet at [http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/

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.³² 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
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
OperationSec. 7, UNPASec. 628, FAATotal
UNTSO (Middle East)11011
UNIKOM (Iraq-Kuwait)15015
MINURSO (Western Sahara)30030
UNCRO (Croatia)0365365
UNPREDEP (Macedonia)248 [42%]324 [58%]559
UNPROFOR (Bosnia-033
Herzegovina)
UNMIH (Haiti)453 [20%]1,814 [80%]2,267
UNOMIG (Georgia)404
TO TAL 748 2,506 3,254
By the end of April 1996, with the U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH) coming to
an end, the number of U.S. military personnel serving in U.N. peacekeeping
operations had fallen to 712.

³¹ (...continued)
bnote.htm].
³² See CRS Report RL31120, Peacekeeping: Military Command and Control Issues, by
Edward F. Bruner and Nina M. Serafino, for discussion of foreign command issues.

As of September 30, 2008, an estimated 309 U.S. personnel served under U.N.
control in six operations. Other than the civilian police in four 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,³³
former, or retired. They are hired for a year at a time and paid by the contractor.
These contracts are financed from Foreign Operations Act accounts.³⁴ A total of
88,754 uniformed personnel from 119 countries served in 16 U.N. peacekeeping
operations.
Table 4. U.S. Personnel Under U.N. Control
as of September 30, 2008
OperationTotal
UNTSO (Middle East)3 (obs.)
UNMIK (Kosovo)214 (police)
UNOMIG (Georgia)2 (obs.)
UNMIL (Liberia)28 (7 troop, 6 obs., 15 police)
MINUSTAH (Haiti)50 (46 police, troop)
UNMIS (Sudan)11 (police)
TO TAL 309^a
^No^te:^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e i}^s^bas^e^{d on}^dat^a^provⁱ^d^{ed m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^by^t^h^e^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e at}
^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^uⁿ^.^o^r^g^/^D^e^p^t^s^/^d^p^k^o^/^d^p^k^o^/^c^oⁿ^t^rⁱ^b^u^t^o^r^s^/^]^.
^{a. T}^h^{e Un}^ite^d^S^t^a^t^e^s^ha^s^oⁿ^{e police in}^UNIOSIL^{(Sierra L}^e^on^{e), a peacebu}^ildin^g^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^bu^{t n}^o^{t a}
^peacek^eepin^g^operation^.
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.

³³ See [http://www.state.gov/p/inl/civ] for information and links.
³⁴ This is now the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act.

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.³⁵
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.³⁶ 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

³⁵ 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
on May 4, 1993.
³⁶ See [http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/reports.htm] , for the reports: S/1999/1257, on
Rwanda; and A/54/549 on Srebrenica.

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
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 assessed plus voluntary.³⁷ 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

³⁷ Voluntary payments by Cyprus and Greece reduce the totals required from assessed
contributions.

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 recent years, the President
has requested and the Congress has appropriated funding for U.S. assessed
contributions to new or expanded peacekeeping operations through the supplemental
appropriations process.
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.
U.N. Proposals for Strengthening Peacekeeping
Agenda for Peace (1992)
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.”³⁸
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, 1992.³⁹ 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

³⁸ 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.
³⁹ The report, U.N. document number A/47/277-S/24111, can be found at
[http://www.un.org/ Docs/SG/agpeace.html ].

United Nations command at Headquarters and in the field; and adequate financial⁴⁰
and logistic support.
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.⁴¹ On May 3, 1994,
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.⁴² 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.

⁴⁰ A/47/277, para. 50, p. 14-15.
⁴¹ 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
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.
⁴² 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 124 member states in 2006.

Among the resulting changes relating to U.N. peacekeeping were 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
^!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.
Brahimi Panel Report (2000)
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.”⁴³ 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, have
not been fully implemented.
Since 2004, reform of U.N. peacekeeping has become part of the overall review
of the United Nations, its capabilities and capacities in the 21^st 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

⁴³ See text of the nearly 70-page report at [http://www.un.org/peace/reports/
peace_operations/].

available personnel, United Nations peacekeeping risks repeating some of its worst
failures of the 1990s.”⁴⁴
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.⁴⁵ 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.
Prince Zeid Report (2005)
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
Adviser on this issue.⁴⁶ 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.
In September 2005, the 60^th session of the U.N. General Assembly, meeting as
a World Summit, 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

⁴⁴ 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/].
⁴⁵ 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/].
⁴⁶ 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/CDT/
reforms.html]; includes links to statements, reports, and related materials.

General Assembly resolutions based upon the recommendations be fully
implemented without delay.” [para. 96]
In November 2005, a Conduct and Discipline Team was set up in the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), and by the end of 2006, Conduct
and Discipline Teams had been established in seven peacekeeping operations and in
U.N. missions in Burundi (BINUB), Sierra Leone (UNIOSIL), and Afghanistan
(UNAMA). According to a report reviewing the status of U.N. measures for
protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, the Team at DPKO is
responsible for developing strategies for “addressing conduct and discipline”
throughout DPKO and for providing “oversight on the state of conduct and discipline
for all categories of personnel in all missions administered by the Department.”⁴⁷
The teams in the missions are to
act as principal advisers to heads of mission on all conduct and discipline issues
involving all categories of personnel and implement measures to prevent
misconduct, to enforce United Nations standards of conduct and to ensure
remedial action when it is required. The teams also receive and monitor
allegations of misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse, forward the
allegations to the appropriate investigating authorities and provide feedback to
victims and host populations on the outcome of investigations.
The teams also train U.N. personnel and host populations on the standards set forth
in the Secretary-General’s bulletin on sexual exploitation and abuse.
On May 29, 2007, U.N. Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie
Guehenno announced the resumption of discussions with U.N. member states on a
“proposed memorandum of understanding setting out standards” for peacekeepers.
These standards were intended to ensure that all would “have the same understanding
of what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, what is criminal, what is not.” In
addition, he stated that “some countries may not have the same standards or
procedures for conducting investigations as the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS).” Mr. Guehenno observed that “some States have indicated they are
opposed to the introduction of such standards and he called on those unnamed⁴⁸
countries to rethink their positions.”
On July 24, 2007, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 61/291,
approving the U.N. standards of conduct language to be included in the revised draft
model memorandum of understanding (MOU), to be used as the basis for negotiation
with all troop-contributing countries. Under this language, it is intended that all U.N.
peacekeeping personnel agree to

⁴⁷ Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. Reportof
the Secretary-General. U.N. document A/61/957, p. 7.
⁴⁸ Taken from U.N. News Service, May 29, 2007. Formal discipline standards for
peacekeepers needed, say UN official. Available at [http://www.un.org/apps/news/
printnews.asp?nid=22720]. See also Press Conference on International Day of United
Nations Peacekeepers, May 29, 2007. Available at [http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/

2007/070529_Guehenno.doc.htm]

conduct themselves in a professional and disciplined manner at all times; respect
local laws, customs and practices; treat host country inhabitants with respect,
courtesy and consideration; and act with impartiality, integrity and tact and
report all acts involving sexual exploitation and abuse. They also agree to
encourage proper conduct among fellow peacekeeping personnel and to properly⁴⁹
account for all money and property assigned to them as mission members.
During a January 2007 Security Council meeting, U.S. Acting U.N.
Representative Alejandro Wolff noted that the United States was “very troubled” by
continued reports of sexual exploitation and abuse by personnel participating in some
U.N. missions. He noted that the organization had responded to Prince Zeid’s report
and recommendations, putting into place a number of guidelines and procedures,
standards of conduct, and policies of zero tolerance on sexual exploitation and abuse
by personnel of U.N. peacekeeping operations. He observed, however, that a
fundamental difficulty resulted from the fact that most personnel in U.N.
peacekeeping operations are provided by U.N. member states. As such, each member
state is responsible for enforcing standards of behavior of its personnel.⁵⁰
On December 21, 2007, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a United Nations
Comprehensive Strategy on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse by United Nations Staff and Related Personnel.⁵¹ After the
decision, U.S. Adviser David Traystman made the following statement:
The United States is very gratified to note that the General Assembly has now
taken action on this important pillar of the Organization’s response to sexual
exploitation and abuse. Victims of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN staff
and related personnel will now receive the assistance they need....
My delegation is especially pleased to note that in adopting this text, the
international community strongly condemns all acts of sexual exploitation and
abuse and reiterates its support for the Secretary-General’s zero tolerance⁵²
policy.
During a statement before the Fifth Committee of the Assembly in May 2008,
Mr. Traystman addressed the work of the Conduct and Discipline Teams:
The Teams are charged with the important task of implementing the
Organization’s rules and regulations concerning conduct and discipline. This
includes the Organization’s three-pronged strategy aimed at eliminating sexual
exploitation and abuse, comprised of measures aimed at prevention of
misconduct, enforcement of UN standards of conduct, and remedial action.

⁴⁹ U.N. Press Release GA/10605, dated July 24, 2007, p. 1.
⁵⁰ On January 5, 2007, U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jane
Holl Lute noted that between January 2004 and the end of November 2006, investigations
completed against 319 peacekeeping personnel in all missions, resulted in summary
dismissals of 18 civilians and the repatriation of 17 police and 144 military personnel. U.N.
Press Briefing, January 5, 2007.
⁵¹ A/RES/62/214.
⁵² USUN Press Release # 392 (07), available at
[http://www.usunnewyork.usmi ssi on.gov/press_releases/20071221_392.html ]

These important functions are ‘core’ responsibilities that should be carried out⁵³
by permanent CDT capacities, both at Headquarters and in the field.
Mr. Traystman continued, “We will continue to press for substantive training and
disciplinary actions by troop contributors for their national contingents to guarantee
that the zero tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse is fully understood,
respected and enforced.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a statement to the
U.N. Security Council on June 19, 2008, followed up on this issue, noting, “While
the individual perpetrator is ultimately responsible for the abuse, member states are⁵⁴
responsible for disciplining and holding their troops accountable.”
Reorganization and Restructuring (2007)
Current discussions on U.N. reform in the peacekeeping area center around the
proliferation of U.N. responses to peace and security circumstances. On February 15,
2007, new U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his proposals for
“strengthening the capacity of the Organization to manage and sustain peace and
security operations.”⁵⁵ Ban proposed a reconfiguration of the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations into two departments: the Department of Peace Operations
and the Department of Field Support. He proposed that the Department of Field
Support be responsible for “the administration and management of field personnel,
procurement, information and communication technology and finances for United
Nations peace operations.” [para. 15] This would, he continued, “allow a separate,
concentrated Department of Peace Operations to focus on the work it needs to do:
strategic as well as day-to-day direction and management of peacekeeping operations;
new mission planning; implementation of policies and standards; and fostering
partnerships with a broad range of United Nations and non-United Nations actors,
including regional organizations.” [para. 16]
He intended to maintain
unity of command and integration of effort at the field level by preserving the
existing overall authority of my special representatives and heads of mission over
all mission components, including the military, police and administrative
components.... The Special Representative ... or Head of Mission will have a
single, clear reporting line to the Secretary-General through the Under-Secretary-
General for Peace Operations.... To ensure unity of command and integration of
effort at the Headquarters level, the Under-Secretary-General of Field Support
will report to and receive direction from the Under-Secretary-General for Peace
Operations on all issues that fall under the purview of United Nations
peacekeeping. [paras. 22-24]

⁵³ USUN Press Release # 110 (08), available at
[http://www.usunnewyork.usmi ssi on.gov/press_releases/20080508_110.html ]
⁵⁴ USUN Press Release #154 (08), available at
[http://www.usunnewyork.usmi ssi on.gov/press_releases/20080619_154.html ].
⁵⁵ Letter dated 15 February 2007 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of
the General Assembly. U.N. document A/61/749*, see especially Annex I, p. 3-18.

He intended to set up, within the Department of Peace Operations, a public affairs
unit that would be responsible for “media relations, departmental publicity, external
relations and corporate messaging/internal communications.” This new unit would
also provide advice on budgetary, administrative, staffing and technical matters to
public information components in the field. [para. 46]
The new Department of Field Support would be responsible for “the
management and administration of information management capacity for
peacekeeping, as well as for conduct and discipline, and for providing secretariat
support to the senior field leadership selection process.” [para. 26] This Department
would have the “analytical and information-processing capacity required to prepare
budget proposals and performance reports” although the Department of Management
would “retain the final authority to submit budgets to the Assembly.” [para. 37] In
addition, Ban intended to “vest authority for field support procurement with the
Department of Field Support by delegating procurement authority to that department
as well as the authority to appoint procurement officers at Headquarters and in the
field.... A common vendor database, a joint vendor review committee, a common
procurement manual ... will be maintained.” [para. 42]
On March 15, 2007, the U.N. General Assembly, in Resolution 61/256,
supported the restructuring of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, including
the establishment of the Department of Field Support and the intention to name an
Under-Secretary-General to head that Department.⁵⁶ The Assembly asked the
Secretary-General to “submit a comprehensive report, as soon as possible,
elaborating on the restructuring of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
the establishment of the Department of Field Support, including functions, budgetary
discipline and full financial implications....”
On June 29, 2007, the U.N. General Assembly approved most of the
restructuring plan and established the Department of Field Support.⁵⁷ In many
instances, not as many new positions were recommended, and the Assembly did not
approve moving the field- or mission-related procurement functions from the
Department of Management to the Department of Field Support.⁵⁸ Most of the added
positions were financed from the support account, that is, from the budgets of
individual peacekeeping operations, rather than as core function positions from the
U.N. regular budget. On March 14, 2008, Secretary-General Ban appointed Susana
Malcorra of Argentina to head the Department of Field Support. She took over from
Jane Holl Lute, who had been Officer-in-charge since the Department was
established in July 2007.

⁵⁶ Note that the name of the DPKO was not changed to the Department of Peace Operations.
⁵⁷ A/RES/61/279, Strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to manage and sustain
peacekeeping operations. The Department was established in July 2007.
⁵⁸ See the 54-page report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
Questions for a detailed accounting of the Assembly response to the Secretary-General’s
proposals, as detailed further in his follow-on reports: U.N. document A/61/937.

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.⁵⁹ 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,
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.⁶⁰
peacekeeping. 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.⁶¹
Reform, was issued on March 24, 2005. 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

⁵⁹ Speech on September 27, 1993, in Public Papers of the Presidents. William J. Clinton,

1993, vol 2, p. 1612-1618.

⁶⁰ Holbrooke, Richard C. U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 5^th
Committee (on Administrative and Budgetary Questions), May 16, 2000. USUN (U.S.
Mission to the United Nations). Press Release #62 (00).
⁶¹ See text at [http://www.usip.org/un/report/usip_un_report.pdf].

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]
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:
1991-2006
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.
Table 5. U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping as Requested
and Enacted, FY1988-FY2006
(in millions of $)
Fiscal YearRequestedSupplementalEnactedCyprus
1988 — — 29.4007.312
198929.000 — 141.000 7.312
1990 — — 81.0798.837
1991247.400 — 133.5218.836
1992 201.292 350.000 464.202 8.374
1993 460.315 293.000 460.315 9.000
1994401.607

619.736670.000670.000 —

1995533.304 Rejected 672.000533.304 —

1996445.000 — 359.000 —

1997^a425.000 — 352.400 —

1998^b286.000 — 256.632 —

1999^c231.000 — 231.000 —

2000235.000Rejected 107.000498.100 —

2001738.666 — 844.139 —

2002^d844.13943.000 Req.844.139

23.034 —

2003725.981 — 673.710 —

2004350.200245.000695.056 —

2005650.000780.000 Req.483.544^e —

680.000
20061,035.50069.8 Req.1,022.275

129.800^f

^No^te:^Ex^{cept f}^o^{r UNT}^{SO an}^{d UNMOGIP}^,^{U.S. as}^s^e^s^s^e^{d con}^t^ribu^tion^s^{to U.N}^.^p^e^acek^eepin^g
^operation^s^{are f}^uⁿ^d^{ed f}^r^om^th^{e C}^I^P^A^accouⁿ^t^{, State Departm}^e^nt^.^U^.^S^.^m^o^ney^f^o^{r UNFIC}^YP^w^a^s
^o^rⁱ^gⁱⁿ^a^l^l^y^fi^na^nc^e^d^b^y^vo^l^unt^a^r^y^c^o^nt^rⁱ^b^u^tⁱ^o^ns,^fund^e^d^t^h^r^o^{ugh t}^h^e^Fo^r^eⁱ^{gn O}^p^e^r^a^tⁱ^o^{ns A}^c^t^.
^{a. “}^R^equ^e^s^t^{ed” in}^clu^d^es^{$142.4 m}^illion^f^o^{r arr}^ears^pay^m^en^{t; “}^E^na^c^t^e^d^{” in}^clu^d^es^{$50 m}^illion^f^o^r
^arrears^.
^{b. B}^o^th^“^R^equ^e^s^t^{ed” an}^{d “}^Eⁿ^acted”ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e $46 m}^illion^f^o^{r arrears}^pay^m^en^t.
^{c. $11.55 m}^illion^of^“^Eⁿ^{acted” w}^a^s^tran^s^f^{erred to th}^{e C}^I^{O accou}ⁿ^t^{, leav}ⁱⁿ^g^{$219.450 m}^illion^.
^{d. $43 m}^illion^requ^es^{ted, March}^{21, 2002, in}^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{FY2002 Su}^pplem^en^tal^A^ppropriation^.^P^.^L^.
^107-^{206 prov}^{ided $23,034,000. In}^clu^d^{ed in}^th^e^En^{acted f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e is}^{$42.206 m}^illion^,^w^h^ich^w^a^s
^tran^s^f^{erred f}^r^om^th^{e C}^I^P^A^{to th}^{e C}^I^O^accouⁿ^t^{, leav}ⁱⁿ^g^{$801.933 m}^illion^f^o^{r allocation}^.
^{e. $50 m}^illioⁿ^of^t^h^e^{$680 m}^illion^{appropriated w}^a^s^tran^s^f^{erred to th}^{e P}^{KO accou}ⁿ^t^{, leav}ⁱⁿ^g^$630
^m^illion^f^r^om^th^{e FY2005 Su}^pplem^en^{tal, f}^o^{r an}^{FY2005 total of}^{$1,113,544,832.}
^f^.^F^Y^{2006 A}^c^t^u^a^l^o^f^$¹^,152.075^r^e^fl^e^c^t^{s r}^e^scⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^o^f⁰^.²⁸^%^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^t^h^r^o^{ugh t}^h^e^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^,^St^a^t^e^,
^Ju^s^tⁱ^{ce, C}^o^m^m^e^{rce, an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^cⁱ^e^s^A^p^propri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,^{2006 (P.L}^{. 109-}^{108) an}^{d t}^h^e
^ge^ne^r^a^l^r^e^scⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^o^f¹^.⁰^%^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^t^h^r^o^ugh^t^h^e^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^Sup^p^l^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^l^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^{ns A}^c^t
^t^o^A^ddres^s^H^u^rri^can^esⁱⁿ^t^h^{e G}^u^l^f^of^Mexⁱ^{co an}^d^P^a^nd^e^mⁱ^c^In^f^l^u^eⁿ^{za, 2006 (P.L}^{. 109-}^148,
^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^B⁾^{[a total of}^{$119.279 m}^illion^]^{. FY2006}^A^c^tu^al^als^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^$129.8^m^illion^prov^ided
^t^h^ro^{ugh t}^h^{e Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r D}^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e, t}^h^{e G}^l^obal^{War on}
^T^e^{rror, an}^{d H}^u^rri^can^{e R}^ecov^e^ry^{, 2006 (P.L}^{. 109-}^234).
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.
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 more⁶²
reliable source. Proponents of this proposal pointed to the extent to which U.N.
peacekeeping advances U.S. national security interests. Section 1342 of the Defense
Authorization Act, P.L. 102-484, authorized the Secretary of Defense to obligate up
to $300 million from defense appropriations to, among other things, fund U.S.
peacekeeping contributions if the funding is not available from the State
Department’s CIPA account. Congress, in P.L. 102-484, asked the President for a
report on the proposals made in “An Agenda for Peace.” President George Bush sent
that report to Congress on January 19, 1993.⁶³

⁶² 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,

102nd Congress. Hearings held, June 9, 1992, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

⁶³ 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/public_papers.php?id=5197&year=1993&month=all].

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.
^!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
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 an 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 (106^th 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
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 an 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.”
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. In 2005, the President signed H.R. 1268 (P.L. 109-13, May
11, 2005), an FY2005 Supplemental that provided $680 million for CIPA for
FY2005 ($50 million of this was transferred to the PKO account, leaving $630
million available).
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-
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). On February 16, 2006,
President Bush had requested, in an 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.⁶⁴
On December 26, 2007, the President had signed into law H.R. 2764, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Division J of which was the Department of⁶⁵
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, FY2008. This
Act provided $1,700,500,000 [$1,690,517,000] for the CIPA account and

⁶⁴ 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.
⁶⁵ P.L. 110-161.

$263,230,000 [$261,381,000] for the PKO account.⁶⁶ This compares with the
President’s request for FY2008 of $1,107,000,000 for U.S. assessed contributions to
U.N. peacekeeping operations, in the CIPA account, and $221,200,000 for the PKO
account. In addition, in October, the President had requested, in a FY2008
Supplemental, an additional $723,600,000 for CIPA, as emergency requirements.⁶⁷
Thus, the President’s CIPA request for FY2008 totaled $1,830,600,000. The Act
also included language raising the peacekeeping assessment cap to 27.1% for
assessments made in calendar year 2008. Payment of U.S. contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations had been limited to a level of 25% for assessments made in
calendar years 2006 and 2007.

⁶⁶ An across-the-board rescission reduced the amount available. The figure in brackets
represents the amount available after application of the rescission.
⁶⁷ FY2008 Supplemental, for U.S. assessed contributions to the AU/U.N. Hybrid Operation
in Darfur (UNAMID). Congress provided, in H.R. 2764, $468 million in emergency
funding in the CIPA account. An additional $333,600,000 remains pending in an emergency
supplemental before Congress.

Appendix A. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations:
A Chronological List
Acronym and Service
Name of OperationDatesLocation
U.N. Truce Supervision Organi-UNTSO 1948-Middle East
zation in Palestine
U.N. Military Observer Group inUNMOGIP 1949-Jammu, Kashmir
India and Pakistanand Pakistan
U.N. Emergency Force IUNEF I 1956-1967Gaza; Egyptian
side in Sinai
U.N. Observer Group in LebanonUNOGIL June-Dec. 1958 —
U.N. Operation in the CongoONUC 1960-1964 —
U.N. Security Force in West NewUNSF Oct. 1962-Apr.West Irian
Guinea1963
U.N. Yemen Observer MissionUNYOM July 1963-Sept. —
1964
U.N. Peacekeeping Force inUNFICYP 1964- —
Cyprus
Mission of Represent. of the Sec’ty-DOMREP May 1965-Oct. —
Gen’l in the Dominican Republic1966
U.N. India/Pakistan ObserverUNIPOM Sept. 1965-Mar.India-Pakistan
Mission 1966 border
U.N. Emergency Force IIUNEF II 1973-1979Suez Canal sector;
Sinai Peninsula
U.N. Disengagement ObserverUNDOF 1974-Israel-Syria:
ForceGolan Heights
U.N. Interim Force in LebanonUNIFIL 1978-Southern Lebanon
U.N. Good Offices Mission inUNGOMAP Apr. 1988- —
Afghanistan and PakistanMar. 1990
U.N. Iran-Iraq Military ObserverUNIIMOG 1988-1991 —
Mission
U.N. Angola Verification MissionUNAVEM Jan. 1989-May —
1991
U.N. Transition Assistance GroupUNTAG Apr. 1989-Mar.Namibia and
1990Angola
U.N. Observer Group in CentralONUCA Nov. 1989-Jan.Costa Rica, El
America1992Salvador, Guate-
mala, Honduras,
Nicaragua
U.N. Iraq-Kuwait ObservationUNIKOM Apr. 1991-Oct. —
Mission6, 2003
U.N. Observer Mission in ElONUSAL May 1991-Apr. —
Salvador1995
U.N. Angola Verification Mission IIUNAVEM II May 1991- —
Feb. 1995
U.N. Mission for the ReferendumMINURSO Apr. 1991- —
in Western Sahara
U.N. Advance Mission in CambodiaUNAMIC Oct. 1991-Mar. —

1992

Acronym and Service
Name of OperationDatesLocation
U.N. Protection ForceUNPROFOR Feb. 1992;Former Yugosla-
March 1995-Jan. 1996via: Croatia,
Bosnia, “Mace-
donia”; B&H
U.N. Transitional Authority inUNTAC Feb. 1992-Oct. —
Cambodia1994
U.N. Operation in Somalia IUNOSOM Apr. 1992-Apr. —
1993
U.N. Operation in MozambiqueONUMOZ Dec. 1992-Jan. —
1995
U.N. Operation in Somalia IIUNOSOM II May 1993- —
March 1995
U.N. Observer Mission Uganda-UNOMUR June 1993-Uganda
RwandaSept. 1994
U.N. Observer Mission in GeorgiaUNOMIG Aug. 1993- —
U.N. Observer Mission in LiberiaUNOMIL Sept. 1993-Sept. —
1997
U.N. Mission in HaitiUNMIH Sept. 1993-June —
1996
U.N. Assistance Mission for RwandaUNAMIR Oct. 1993- —
March 1996
U.N. Aouzou Strip Observer Group UNASOG May 4-June 13,Chad and Libya
1994
U.N. Mission of Observers inUNMOT Dec. 1994-May —
Tajikistan15, 2000
U.N. Angola Verification Mission IIIUNAVEM III Feb. 1995- —
June 1997
U.N. Confidence RestorationUNCRO March 1995-Jan. —
Operation in Croatia1996
U.N. Preventive Deployment ForceUNPREDEP March 1995-“Macedonia”
Feb. 1999
U.N. Mission in Bosnia andUNMIBH Dec. 1995-Dec.Bosnia &
Herzegovina (Includes Intl. Police31, 2002Herzegovina
Task Force (IPTF))
U.N. Transitional Administration forUNTAES Jan. 1996-Croatia
E. Slavonia, Baranja & W. SirmiumJan.1998
U.N. Mission of Observers in theUNMOP Jan. 1996-Dec.Croatia
Prevlaka15, 2002
U.N. Support Mission in HaitiUNSMIH June 1996-July —
1997
U.N. Verification Mission inMINUGUA Jan. 20-May —
Guatemala1997
U.N. Observer Mission in AngolaMONUA July 1997-Feb. —
1999
U.N. Transition Mission in HaitiUNTMIH Aug.-Nov. 1997 —
U.N. Civilian Police Mission in HaitiMIPONUH Dec.1997- —

March 2000

Acronym and Service
Name of OperationDatesLocation
U.N. Civilian Police Support Group -UNPSG Jan.-Oct. 15, 1998 —
Croatia
U.N. Mission in the Central AfricanMINURCA March 27, —
Republic1998-Feb. 15, 2000
U.N. Observer Mission in SierraUNOMSIL July 1998-Oct. —
Leone1999
U.N. Interim AdministrationUNMIK June 10, 1999- —
Mission in Kosovo
U.N. Observer Mission in theMONUC 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 inUNTAET 1999-2002 —
East Timor
U.N. Mission in Ethiopia and EritreaUNMEE Sept. 15, 2000- —
July 31, 2008
U.N. Mission of Support in EastUNMISET May 20, 2002- —
TimorMay 20, 2005
U.N. Mission in LiberiaUNMIL Sept. 19, 2003- —
U.N. Mission in Cote d’IvoireUNOCI April 4, 2004- —
U.N. Operation in BurundiONUB June 1, 2004- —
Dec. 31, 2006
U.N. Stabilization Mission in HaitiMINUSTAH June 1, —

2004-

U.N. Mission in the SudanUNMIS March 24, 2005- —
U.N. Integrated Mission in Timor-UNMIT August 25, 2006- —
Leste
African Union/United NationsUNAMID July 31, 2007;Darfur, Sudan
Hybrid Operation in Darfurstarted December 31, 2007
U.N. Mission in the Central MINURCAT September Chad and the
African Republic and Chad25, 2007-Central African
Republic
Note: The Names of Operations in bold are still in existence.

Appendix B. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations:
Numbers Created Annually, 1948-2008
Year — NumberOperation and Dates
1948 — oneU.N. Truce Supervision Organization
in Palestine (UNTSO) 1948-
1949 — oneU.N. Military Observer Group in India and
Pakistan (UNMOGIP) 1949-
1956 — oneU.N. Emergency Force I (UNEF I) 1956-1967

1958 — oneU.N. Observer Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL) June-

Dec. 1958
1960s — sixU.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 — threeU.N. Emergency Force II (UNEF II) 1973-1979
U.N. Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)

1974-

U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 1978-
1988 — twoU.N. Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and
Pakistan (UNGOMAP) Apr. 1988-Mar. 1990
U.N. Iran-Iraq Military Observer Mission
(UNIIMOG) 1988-1991

1989 — threeU.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 — fiveU.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

Year — NumberOperation and Dates

1992 — fourU.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 — sixU.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 — twoU.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 — fourU.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 — threeU.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 — fourU.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

Year — NumberOperation and Dates
1998 — threeU.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 — fourU.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo^a

(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-Dec. 31, 2005
U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor
(UNTAET) 1999-2002
2000 — oneU.N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea
(UNMEE) Sept. 15, 2000-July 31, 2008
2002 — oneU.N. Mission of Support in East Timor
(UNMISET) May 20, 2002-

2003 — twoU.N. Mission in Cote d’Ivoire (MINUCI) May 2003-

April 2004
U.N. Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) Sept. 19, 2003-

2004 — threeU.N. Mission in Cote d’Ivoire (UNOCI) April 4,

2004-

U.N. Operation in Burundi (ONUB) June 1, 2004-
Dec. 31, 2006
U.N. Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
June 1, 2004-

2005 — oneU.N. Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS) March 24,

2005-

2006 — oneU.N. Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)

August 25, 2006
2007 — twoU.N. Mission in the Central African Republic and
Chad (MINURCAT) September 25, 2007-
African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation
in Darfur (UNAMID) July 31, 2007 [December 31,

2007)-

Note: The names of operations in bold are still in existence.

Appendix C. United Nations Peacekeeping over the Years:
Statistical Data for Comparative Analysis,
1978-2008
No. ofU.N. CostsU.S.U.S.
OperationsCalendar YearU.N.^aContribution Personnel,
Yearas of 12/31in US $PersonnelCY, in U.S. $as of 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)
1995163,364,000,00068,894 (8/31)411,137,6882,851
1996161,405,000,00029,140 (1/31)333,958,992759
1997 15 1,160,000,000 24,952 372,570,005 644
(1/31)
199816995,000,00014,347245,971,114583 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)
2001152,700,000,00047,1081,328,471,746 750
2002132,702,000,00046,799 (4/30)794,235,696631
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
200615 not available80,3681,118,372,949324
200717not available84,309not available316
200816 (as ofnot available88,754 (as ofnot available309 (as of

9/30)9/30)9/30)

^Sources^{of Data in Appendix}^C:
^Num^b^{er of Operations}
^Un^ited^Natioⁿ^s^an^d^{Appendix A}^.
^{U.N. Co}^sts
^G^l^o^b^a^l^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^F^o^r^u^m,^N^e^{w Y}^o^r^k^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^g^l^o^b^a^l^p^o^lⁱ^c^y^.^o^r^g^/^fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^c^e^/^t^a^b^l^e^s^/^p^k^o^/
^ex^pen^d^arrears^.^h^t^m^]
^Un^{ited Nation}^s^Departm^eⁿ^t^of^P^eacek^eepin^g^Operation^s

^{U.N. Perso}^nnel
^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^D^e^partm^eⁿ^t^of^P^eacek^eepin^g^O^p^e^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^uⁿ^.^o^r^g^/^D^e^p^t^s^/^d^p^k^o^/^d^p^k^o^/^]
^G^l^o^b^a^l^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^F^o^r^u^m,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^g^l^o^b^a^l^p^o^lⁱ^c^y^.^o^r^g^/^s^e^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^/^p^eacek^pg^/data/pcek^prs^.^h^t^m^]
^{U.S. Co}^nt^ribut^io^ns
^{U.N. docu}^m^en^{t: Statu}^s^of^C^oⁿ^t^ribu^tion^s^{, a}^s^of^{31 Decem}^{ber of}^an^y^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^y^ear,
^ST^/A^DM/SER^{.B./ — -}
^{U.S. P}^erso^nnel
^{U.N. Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^o^f^P^eacek^eepⁱⁿ^g^Op^eratioⁿ^s^{, [h}^ttp^://^www.^uⁿ^.^o^r^g^/^D^e^p^t^s^/^d^p^k^o^/^d^p^k^o^/^]
^{a. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e is}^as^of^Decem^{ber 31, u}ⁿ^l^es^s^hⁱ^g^h^e^s^t^of^y^e^a^rⁱ^s^very^dif^f^e^ren^t^{. In}^{1993, 12/31 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e is}
^69,961;ⁱⁿ¹⁹⁹⁴^,¹²^/³¹ⁱ^s⁶⁹^,^{356. In}^{1996, 12/}^{31 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e i}^s^24,919;ⁱⁿ^{1997, 12/}^{31 i}^s^14,879.
^In^{2002, 12/}^{31 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e i}^s^39,652.

Appendix D. U.N. Peacekeeping:
Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions
for Calendar Year 2006
(As of December 31, 2006) (in U.S. dollars)
Payments
in 2006
(Paid +
Arrears as2006Credits =Outstanding
Name of Operationof 12/31/05AssessmentsTotal)as of 12/31
CURRENT OPERATIONS
UNDOF (Middle East)9,547,92211,383,937 10,165,762 +10,240,549
525,548 CR
= 10,691,220
UNIFIL (Lebanon)49,133,03224,059,94126,037,442 +44,819,753
2,335,778 CR
= 28,373,220
MINURSO (W. Sahara)46,292,3568,067,07511,325,597 +42,640,805
393,029 CR
= 11,718,626
UNFICYP (Cyprus)11,185,0656,759,7566,033,957 +11,680,084

230,780 CR =

6,264,737
UNOMIG (Georgia)5,832,2368,694,4875,865,412 +8,169,786

491,525 CR =

3,356,937
UNMIK (Kosovo)32,605,94830,350,27825,819,150 +34,374,961
2,762,115 CR
= 28,581,265
MONUC (DR Congo)237,268,962151,955,730262,844,000 +108,157,695
18,222,997
CR =
281,066,997
UNMEE4,617,84938,803,16316,912,846 +17,987,632
(Ethiopia/Eritrea)8,520,434 CR
= 25,433,280
UNMIL (Liberia)0150,263,78272,294,273 +49,269,150
28,700,359
CR =
100,994,632
UNOCI (Cote d’Ivoire)7,672,964104,409,10690,676,151 +6,199,581

15,206,338
CR =
105,882,489

Payments
in 2006
(Paid +
Arrears as2006Credits =Outstanding
Name of Operationof 12/31/05AssessmentsTotal)as of 12/31
MINUSTAH (Haiti)7,731,806121,874,56085,264,664 +42,580,441
1,761,261 CR
= 87,025,925
ONUB (Burundi)9,883,50867,795,93871,859,532 +14,203,942
8,384,028 CR
= 80,243,500
UNMIS (Sudan)120,481,581214,472,520313,492,800 +20,718,278

743,023 CR =

314,235,823
CLOSED OPERATIONS
UNIKOM (Iraq,4,195,464not applicable3,748,871 CR446,593
Kuwait)= 3,748,871
UNMIBH (Bosnia &33,825,345not applicable033,825,345
Herz.)
MONUA (Angola)34,794,215not applicable034,794,215
UNPROFOR (former43,492,191not applicable043,492,191
Yugoslavia)
UNAMIR (Rwanda)341,372not applicable0341,372
UNTAC (Cambodia)11,465,637not applicable011,465,637
UNTAES (Croatia)8,699,793not applicable08,699,793
(includes CPSG)
UNPREDEP1,232,081not applicable01,232,081
(Macedonia)
UNTMIH/MIPONUH19,385,377not applicable019,385,377
(Haiti)
MINURCA (Central35,538,048not applicable035,538,048
African Republic)
UNOSOM II20,340,516not applicable020,340,516
ONUMOZ6,680,111not applicable06,680,111
(Mozambique)
UNAMSIL (Sierra29,051,537not applicable 26,309,8872,741,650
Leone)CR =
26,309,887
UNTAET (E. Timor)32,031,356not applicable 4,445,390 CR27,585,966

= 4,445,390

Payments
in 2006
(Paid +
Arrears as2006Credits =Outstanding
Name of Operationof 12/31/05AssessmentsTotal)as of 12/31
TOTALS823,326,272938,890,273995,591,586 +657,611,552
122,781,363
CR =
1,118,372,949
Regular Budget251,851,905423,464,855383,908,137291,408,623
Sources: United Nations. Status of Contributions, as of December 31, 2005, and December

31, 2006.

Notes: Total Paid includes $122,781,363 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 $17,893,368 were available for the United States but not used, as of
December 31, 2006, for five operations: UNTAG (Namibia): $11,991,064; ONUSAL (El
Salvador): $2,677,182; UNMIH (Haiti): $1,448,861; UNOMIL (Liberia): $883,052; and
UNMOT (Tajikistan): $893,209.

2006 assessments figure is for bills received during CY2006.

Appendix E. 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
(Paid +
Arrears as2005Credits =Outstanding
Name of Operationof 12/31/04AssessmentsTotal)as of 12/31
CURRENT OPERATIONS
UNDOF (Middle East)9,547,92211,489,156 11,063,876 +9,547,922
425,280 CR
= 11,489,156
UNIFIL (Lebanon)33,944,81926,145,6448,698,650 +49,133,032
2,258,781 CR
= 10,957,431
MINURSO (W. Sahara)45,757,72412,560,66210,992,403 +46,292,356
1,033,627 CR
= 12,026,030
UNFICYP (Cyprus)15,046,1903,695,2037,369,168 +11,185,065

187,160 CR =

7,556,328
UNOMIG (Georgia)5,832,2369,335,2739,040,588 +5,832,236

294,685 CR =

9,335,273
UNAMSIL (Sierra54,208,47230,102,57540,832,296 +29,051,537
Leone) 14,427,214
CR =
55,259,510
UNMIK (Kosovo)32,605,94875,125,88873,932,842 +32,605,948
1,193,046 CR
= 75,125,888
UNTAET (E. Timor)46,970,273465,63110,582,746 +32,031,356
4,821,802 CR
= 15,404,548
MONUC (DR Congo)109,117,869421,508,396284,593,111 +237,268,962
8,764,192 CR
= 293,357,303
UNMEE4,617,84951,668,82946,281,571 +4,617,849
(Ethiopia/Eritrea)5,387,258 CR
= 51,668,829
UNMIL (Liberia)0151,468,628146,922,081 +0

4,546,547 CR
= 151,468,628

Payments
in 2005
(Paid +
Arrears as2005Credits =Outstanding
Name of Operationof 12/31/04AssessmentsTotal)as of 12/31
UNOCI (Cote d’Ivoire)24,607,92888,081,377101,458,849 +7,672,964
3,557,492 CR
= 105,016,341
MINUSTAH (Haiti)48,214,38996,784,188133,342,343 +7,731,806
3,924,428 CR
= 137,266,771
ONUB (Burundi)52,257,85251,094,37890,941,118 +9,883,508
2,527,604 CR
= 93,468,722
UNMIS (Sudan)not252,426,299131,944,718120,481,581
applicable
CLOSED OPERATIONS
UNIKOM (Iraq,4,195,464not applicable0 4,195,464
Kuwait)
UNMIBH (Bosnia &33,825,345not applicable033,825,345
Herz.)
MONUA (Angola)34,794,215not applicable034,794,215
UNPROFOR (former43,492,191not applicable043,492,191
Yugoslavia)
UNAMIR (Rwanda)341,372not applicable0341,372
UNTAC (Cambodia)11,465,637not applicable011,465,637
UNTAES (Croatia)8,699,793not applicable08,699,793
(includes CPSG)
UNPREDEP1,232,081not applicable01,232,081
(Macedonia)
UNTMIH/MIPONUH19,385,377not applicable019,385,377
(Haiti)
MINURCA (Central35,538,048not applicable035,538,048
African Republic)
UNOSOM II20,340,516not applicable020,340,516
ONUMOZ6,680,111not applicable06,680,111
(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 Budget240,520,860439,611,612428,280,567251,851,905

Sources: United Nations. Status of Contributions, as of December 31, 2004, and December

31, 2005.

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 $17,893,368 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): $1,448,861; UNOMIL (Liberia): $883,052; and UNMOT (Tajikistan):
$893,209.

2005 assessments figure is for bills received during CY2005.

Appendix F. U.N. Peacekeeping:
Status of U.S. Assessed Contributions
for Calendar Year 2004
(As of December 31, 2004) (in U.S. dollars)
Payments
in 2004Outstanding
Name of OperationArrears asof 12/31/032004Assessments(Paid +as of 12/31
Credits =
Total)
CURRENT OPERATIONS
UNDOF (Middle East)9,547,92211,319,478 10,810,260 +9,547,922

509,218 CR =

11,319,478
UNIFIL (Lebanon)43,086,38527,756,24812,551,792 +33,944,819
24,346,022
CR =
36,897,814
MINURSO (W.41,847,25715,556,03010,042,459 +45,757,724
Sahara)1,603,104 CR
= 11,645,562
UNFICYP (Cyprus)11,185,06510,974,7236,842,744 +15,046,190

270,854 CR =

7,113,598
UNOMIG (Georgia)5,832,2369,504,5318,401,568 +5,832,236
1,102,962 CR
= 9,504,530
UNAMSIL (Sierra29,051,537151,213,452118,726,153 + 54,208,472
Leone)7,330,364 CR
= 126,056,517
UNMIK (Kosovo)32,605,948118,025,210115,115,953 +32,605,948
2,909,257 CR
= 118,025,210
UNTAET (E. Timor)31,853,05854,813,92435,769,688 +46,970,273
3,927,021 CR
= 39,696,709
MONUC (DR Congo)10,473,943245,887,340111,312,570 +109,117,869
35,930,844 CR
= 147,243,414
UNMEE4,617,84967,014,45760,415,945 +4,617,849
(Ethiopia/Eritrea)6,598,512 CR
= 67,014,457
UNMIL (Liberia)not380,841,360380,841,3600

applicable

Payments
in 2004Outstanding
Name of OperationArrears asof 12/31/032004Assessments(Paid +as of 12/31
Credits =
Total)
not 106,631,162 82,023,234 24,607,928
UNOCI (Cote d’Ivoire)applicable
MINUSTAH (Haiti)not107,371,40559,157,01648,214,389
applicable
ONUB (Burundi)not93,890,28241,632,43052,257,852
applicable
CLOSED OPERATIONS
UNIKOM (Iraq,5,352,181not applicable1,156,717 CR 4,195,464
Kuwait)
UNMIBH (Bosnia &38,359,814not applicable4,534,469 CR 33,825,345
Herzegovina)
MONUA (Angola)41,309,040not applicable6,514,825 CR34,794,215
UNPROFOR (former45,333,637not applicable1,841,446 CR43,492,191
Yugoslavia)
UNOMIL (Liberia)1,090,869not applicable1,090,869 CR(883,052)
UNAMIR (Rwanda)4,257,231not applicable3,915,859 CR341,372
UNMOT (Tajikistan)219,791not applicable219,791 CR(893,209)
UNTAES (Croatia)10,713,712not applicable2,013,919 CR8,699,793
(includes CPSG)
UNPREDEP2,203,908not applicable971,827 CR1,232,081
(“Macedonia”)
UNTMIH and19,385,377not applicable019,385,377
MIPONUH (Haiti)
MINURCA (Central35,538,048not applicable035,538,048
African Republic)
UNTAC (Cambodia)11,465,637not applicable011,465,637
20,340,516not applicable020,340,516
UNOSOM II (Somalia)
ONUMOZ6,680,111not applicable06,680,111
(Mozambique)
TOTALS 497,326,681 1,400,799,282 1,160,431,052 702,719,621
Regular Budget267,960,871362,852,996390,293,007240,520,860

Sources: United Nations. Status of Contributions, as of December 31, 2003, and December

31, 2004.

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.