U.N. Peacekeeping: Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years
1996-2001 (11-FEB-02, GAO-02-294).
The United Nations (U.N.) Security Council authorized or
maintained 33 peacekeeping operations in 28 countries between
fiscal years 1996 and 2001. Fifteen operations were ongoing as of
January 2002. Although U.N. member countries are directly
assessed for the cost of these operations, some countries,
including the United States, implement programs or activities
that provide indirect support to peacekeeping operations. The
United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to
support U.N. peacekeeping from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
U.S. contributions that indirectly benefited U.N. peacekeeping
are estimated at $24.2 billion during this period. GAO defined
indirect contributions as U.S. programs and activities that are
located in the same area as an ongoing U.N. peacekeeping
operation, have objectives that help the peacekeeping operation
achieve its mandated objectives, and are not an official part of
the U.N. operation.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-294
ACCNO: A02747
TITLE: U.N. Peacekeeping: Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal
Years 1996-2001
DATE: 02/11/2002
SUBJECT: Cost analysis
International cooperation
International organizations
International relations
Peace keeping
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-294
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
February 2002
U.N. PEACEKEEPING
Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years 1996-2001
GAO-02-294
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 2
Background 3
U.S. Direct Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
6
U.S. Indirect Contributions Supported U.N. Peacekeeping
7
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 9
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II Other U.S. Contributions During Peacekeeping
Operations
Appendix III U.S. Indirect Contributions
Appendix IV U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping
Operations
Appendix V Comments from the Department of State
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix VII Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
31
Development
Tables
Table 1: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Operations by
Agency, Fiscal Years 1996-2001 (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in
thousands) 21
Table 2: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping
Operations by Mission, Fiscal Years 1996-2001
Figures
Figure 1: Locations of 33 U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years
1996-2001 Figure 2: Total U.N. Peacekeeping Costs, Peacekeeping Fiscal Years
1995-2002 (Constant 2001 dollars in billions) Figure 3: U.S. Military
Operations Providing Indirect Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations,
Fiscal Years 1996-2001
4 6 20
Abbreviations
DOD Department of Defense
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
U.N. United Nations
USAID United States Agency for International Development
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
February 11, 2002
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman, Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett
House of Representatives
The United Nations Security Council authorizes peacekeeping operations
as a means to further international peace and security. From fiscal years
1996 through 2001, the Security Council authorized or maintained 33
peacekeeping operations in 28 countries. Fifteen operations were ongoing
as of January 2002. Although U.N. member countries are directly assessed
for the cost of conducting these operations, some countries, including the
United States, implement programs or activities that provide indirect
support to peacekeeping operations.
This report responds to your request that we determine both the U.S.
direct and indirect contributions related to U.N. peacekeeping from fiscal
years 1996 through 2001. For this report, contributions include U.S.
government expenditures or obligations if data on expenditures are
unavailable.1 (App. I details our scope and methodology.) We also provide
information on activities that we do not include as direct or indirect
contributions but that the United States has undertaken to assist countries
in which the United Nations is conducting peacekeeping operations (see
app. II for details on these activities).
To answer your request, we collected and analyzed cost information on
U.S. assistance programs and military operations provided by the State
Department, the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), and the Departments of
1The cost information in this report is based on official U.S. budget
documents, but may not
accurately portray precise costs. For example, our audit of the U.S.
government's
consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2000 highlighted
continuing problems in
accurately reporting the costs associated with major portions of the
government's
operations and possible misstatements concerning reported obligations and
outlays. See
U.S. Government Financial Statements: FY 2000 Reporting Underscores the Need
to
Accelerate Federal Financial Management Reform (GAO-01-570T, March 30,
2001).
Results in Brief
Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and Treasury. We used State and DOD
definitions and reports to estimate the cost of U.S. direct contributions.
We determined which U.S. program costs to include as indirect contributions
to U.N. peacekeeping operations by comparing the U.S. program objectives,
locations, and time frames with the mandates of each U.N. peacekeeping
operation. We used this information to determine whether the U.S. activity
provided indirect support to the U.N. operation. We also collected
information from and discussed our analytical approach with relevant U.S.
and U.N. officials, since the U.S. government does not systematically
collect data on indirect contributions.
The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support
U.N. peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.2 Direct
contributions are U.S. programs and actions that directly support specific
U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) about $3.2 billion the
Department of State expended for U.N. current and past due peacekeeping
assessments and (2) nearly $250 million that State and DOD voluntarily spent
to support U.S. civilian police, military units, and military observers to
serve as an official part of a U.N. peacekeeping operation. As of September
30, 2001, the United States was providing 733 civilian police, soldiers, and
military observers to U.N. peacekeeping operations.
We estimate that U.S. indirect contributions that benefited U.N.
peacekeeping were about $24.2 billion, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
Although there is no common definition within the U.S. government on what
constitutes indirect contributions, we defined indirect contributions as
U.S. programs and activities that (1) are located in the same area as an
ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operation, (2) have objectives that help the
peacekeeping operation achieve its mandated objectives, and (3) are not an
official part of the U.N. operation. The largest indirect contribution
(about $21.8 billion) stemmed from U.S. military operations and services
that helped provide a secure environment for U.N. operations.3 However, the
type and extent of indirect contribution varied, depending on whether the
U.N. operation was traditional (limited objectives), multidimensional
(several objectives), or involved nation-
2 Except where noted, all cost estimates in this report are presented in
constant fiscal year 2001 dollars.
3Figures for indirect military contributions are cumulative through June 30,
2001.
building (broad and extensive objectives). For example, two U.N. operations
in Kosovo and East Timor involved nation-building, and they had extensive
objectives, such as creating government agencies and rebuilding the economy.
Estimated U.S. indirect contributions to these operations amounted to over
$5 billion and included military operations to help provide a secure
environment and programs to provide food and shelter for refugees and train
police and court officials.
This report contains no recommendations. We received written comments from
State, DOD, and USAID. State and DOD disagreed with our inclusion of
indirect contributions, commenting that U.S. operations are undertaken in
the U.S. interest and there should not be an implied connection between U.S.
operations and U.N. peacekeeping efforts. State also said our draft report
implied that the United Nations should reimburse the United States for
indirect contributions. We have revised this report to clarify any
impression that the United Nations should reimburse the United States for
its indirect contributions. However, we disagree with State's and DOD's
position that indirect contributions should be excluded from our analysis.
Excluding these contributions presents an incomplete picture of the
important contribution that the United States has made over the years that
help U.N. peacekeeping efforts achieve their objectives. In contrast to
State and DOD, USAID said it appreciated our efforts to quantify the value
of U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, adding that its own activities
helped make U.N. peacekeeping efforts more effective.
U.N. peacekeeping operations are actions taken as a result of mandates
established by U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to further
international peace and security. The mandated objectives of these
operations range from observing and monitoring the border area of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to providing security and establishing an
effective government and economy in East Timor. Personnel assigned to these
operations work directly under the control of the United Nations and include
soldiers, military observers, civilian police, and U.N. civilian staff.
Between fiscal years 1996 and 2001, the United Nations conducted 33
peacekeeping operations in 28 countries (see fig. 1 for the locations of
these operations). As of January 2002, 15 of these peacekeeping operations
were still ongoing in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. These
operations deploy over 47,000 military personnel, civilian police, and
observers.
Background
Figure 1: Locations of 33 U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years
1996-2001
Note: Numbers in brackets denote multiple missions.
Source: GAO analysis of U.N. data.
The United Nations assesses member states a percentage share of the total
cost of peacekeeping operations. The U.S. assessed share has historically
been over 30 percent of total peacekeeping costs, but in November 1994 the
Congress limited the amount the United States could pay to 25 percent,
starting in fiscal year 1996.4 The United Nations continued to bill the
United States at the higher assessment rate, leading to U.S. arrears. But in
2000, U.N. member states agreed to change the assessment formula and
4P.L. 103-236, sect. 404(b)(2), 106 Stat. 447.
drop the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget over a 3-year period to 27
percent.
The annual assessed cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations declined from more
than $3 billion in 1995 to less than $1 billion in 1999, as the United
Nations reduced the number, size, and cost of its operations. During this
period, the United Nations ended or reduced its operations in Bosnia, the
Central African Republic, Croatia, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, and Tajikistan.
The Security Council was reluctant to assume new operations or expand
existing ones because of member state concerns about the failure of U.N.
operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda.5
Since 1999, however, the United Nations has begun or expanded peacekeeping
operations in Kosovo, East Timor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Lebanon, Sierra Leone, and Ethiopia-Eritrea. Because some of these new or
expanded operations had objectives to restore peace and security and build
effective police forces and justice systems in the countries, they needed
the broad international approval that the United Nations could provide. As a
result, reported peacekeeping costs for the U.N. peacekeeping budget year
ending June 30, 2001, increased to about $2.6 billion.6 Further, State
Department and U.N. officials project that expenditures associated with
peacekeeping operations for the U.N. peacekeeping budget year ending June
30, 2002, will be more than $3 billion. Figure 2 depicts the expenditures
associated with U.N. peacekeeping operations from 1995 through 2002. The
cumulative cost of peacekeeping for these operations during this period was
about $16.3 billion (constant 2001 dollars).
5We noted these problems in several previous reports, including U.N.
Peacekeeping: Lessons Learned in Managing Recent Missions (GAO/NSIAD-94-9,
Dec. 29, 1993); Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Somalia (GAO/NSIAD-94-152BR,
June 9, 1994); Peace Operations: Update on the Situation in Former
Yugoslavia (GAO/NSIAD-95-148, Sept. 8, 1995); and United Nations:
Limitations in Leading Missions Requiring Force to Restore Peace
(GAO/NSIAD-97-34, Mar. 27, 1997).
6The United Nations prepares peacekeeping budgets based on a year that
begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year.
Figure 2: Total U.N. Peacekeeping Costs, Peacekeeping Fiscal Years 1995-2002
(Constant 2001 dollars in billions)
Note: These dollars are presented in constant 2001 dollars. Each bar
provides costs for the U.N. peacekeeping budget year-July 1 to June 30 of
the following year.
Source: GAO analysis based on State and U.N. data.
The Departments of State and Defense provided the United Nations about $3.45
billion in direct contributions to conduct peacekeeping operations between
U.S. fiscal years 1996 and 2001. This amount includes contributions for (1)
over $3.2 billion current and past due U.N. peacekeeping assessments and (2)
the estimated cost for U.S. civilian police, troops, and military observers
to serve directly with U.N. peacekeeping operations minus any U.N.
reimbursement to the United States for the costs associated with these
personnel.
From fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the United States paid U.N.
peacekeeping assessments of about $2.35 billion. The assessments supported
33 peacekeeping operations conducted during this period. In addition to
these payments, the United States paid the United Nations almost $850
million for past due peacekeeping assessments. Congress
U.S. Direct Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
U.S. Indirect Contributions Supported U.N. Peacekeeping
passed legislation in 19997 that appropriated funds for much of the past due
payments, under the condition that the United Nations adopt certain reform
measures, including a reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping assessment rate. As
discussed earlier, the United Nations reduced the U.S. assessment rate for
peacekeeping to about 27 percent; and in 2001, Congress passed legislation
allowing payment of arrears as a result of this
8
reduction in the rate.
The direct contributions also reflect nearly $250 million in U.S. voluntary
contributions to provide and support U.S. civilian police and military
personnel or civilians to serve under the authority of a U.N. peacekeeping
force, such as the police officers deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo and the
military personnel assigned to U.N. operations in Haiti and Macedonia. These
personnel typically serve as military observers, combat soldiers, or police
officers or trainers.9
We estimate the cumulative U.S. government indirect contributions that help
support U.N. peacekeeping operations, between fiscal years 1996 and 2001, at
about $24.2 billion. We define indirect contributions as U.S. programs and
activities that are located in the same area as an ongoing U.N. peacekeeping
operation, have objectives that help the peacekeeping operation achieve its
mandated objectives, and are not an official part of the U.N. operation.
About 90 percent of the indirect contributions, or an estimated $21.8
billion, stemmed from U.S. military operations and services that helped
provide secure environments for the U.N. operations to function. (See app.
III for information on indirect contributions by each U.S. agency and a map
of the locations of the military operations.) However, the extent and type
of indirect contribution depended on whether the U.N. operation was (1)
traditional-had limited objectives, generally to monitor or supervise
cease-fire and peace agreements; (2) multidimensional-had multiple
objectives, such as rebuilding the civilian police force and aiding
refugees; or (3) nation-building-had broad objectives and executive
authority to construct a country's political, legal,
7P. L. 106-113, app. G, 113 Stat. 1501A-475-476. The Congress authorized
$926 million to be applied to past due payments for U.N. peacekeeping and
other U.N. activities.
8P.L. 107-46, 115 Stat. 259.
9Many other contributing nations provide police units to U.N. peacekeeping
operations from their national police forces; the United States provides
police officers to the United Nations under individual contracts.
and economic institutions and provide governmental functions for an interim
period. Each successive category entails more objectives and greater effort
for the U.N. peacekeeping operations, and we identified correspondingly
greater and more costly U.S. indirect contributions for these operations.
(App. IV provides more detailed information on all 33 U.N. peacekeeping
operations conducted from fiscal years 1996 through 2001 and U.S.
contributions to these operations.)
Fourteen traditional peacekeeping operations were conducted during this
period; indirect U.S. contributions to these operations cost an estimated
$6.1 billion. The largest contribution assisted the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait
Observation Mission, which has mandates to monitor the demilitarized zone
between Iraq and Kuwait and to deter Iraqi violations of the Kuwait border.
U.S.-led military operations in the Persian Gulf area, including ground
patrols and naval operations-which cost DOD an estimated $5.8 billion from
fiscal years 1996 through 2001-deter Iraqi aggression. These activities
support the U.N. operation's objective to prevent violations of the
Iraq-Kuwait border. Other U.S. indirect contributions, totaling an estimated
$300 million, helped support several U.N. operations by providing emergency
food aid, military education and training, and military equipment.
Seventeen multidimensional U.N. operations were conducted between fiscal
years 1996 through 2001; U.S. indirect contributions to these operations
were an estimated $13 billion. The largest U.S. indirect contribution to
these U.N. operations was for U.S. military operations in Bosnia. For
example, the cost to DOD for providing thousands of U.S. military personnel
and other aid to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led or
coalition-led operations in Bosnia was an estimated $11.2 billion, from
fiscal years 1996 through 2001. These coalition forces provided the secure
environment necessary for the U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina to help
restructure the law enforcement and judicial system of Bosnia. U.S. indirect
contributions to support Bosnia peacekeeping also included about $480
million for police and judicial training and humanitarian aid. Other U.S.
food aid and assistance programs indirectly helped six multidimensional U.N.
operations carry out mandates to help provide humanitarian assistance. For
example, several U.S. agency programs, including Food for Peace, provided
Rwanda $140 million for emergency food rations and other humanitarian aid,
which helped the U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda aid war victims.
U.S. indirect contributions costing an estimated $5 billion helped the two
nation-building operations-the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in
Kosovo and the U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor. These
operations have broad mandates to create or rebuild the countries'
government agencies and financial institutions, and U.S. indirect
contributions helped the operations in a variety of ways. The largest U.S.
indirect contribution was used for U.S. military operations, costing about
$4.1 billion. In Kosovo, for example, U.S. participation in the NATO-led
force provided public security and allowed the U.N. mission in Kosovo to
function and maintain civil law and order. U.S. bilateral development and
assistance programs, estimated at $900 million, provided additional indirect
support to the U.N. operations.10 For example, State and USAID programs
helped create civil and social services in East Timor and provided economic
reconstruction assistance in Kosovo.
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
State, DOD, and USAID provided written comments on a draft of this report
that are reprinted in appendixes V, VI, and VII. State and DOD disagreed
with the inclusion of indirect contributions in our analysis, while USAID
supported it.
Specifically, State and DOD said it was misleading to characterize U.S.
military operations as providing support for U.N. peacekeeping activities
because it implied a connection between U.N. operations and U.S. programs
that does not exist. According to these agencies, U.S. activities are
determined solely on the basis of U.S. interests, regardless of any
coincidental benefits that may accrue to U.N. peacekeepers; and these
benefits should not be equated with providing support to the United Nations.
State also expressed concern that our inclusion of indirect contributions
implied that independent actions by the United States or other member
nations, even if they provided benefit to the U.N. operations, might be used
by the United States or other member countries as a rationale to offset
assessed payments to the United Nations for peacekeeping.
In contrast with State and DOD, USAID agreed with our findings, stating that
it was fully supportive of a number of indirect contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations. USAID also cited its work to provide
10Other U.N. member nations also provide similar types of indirect support
to U.N. peacekeeping operations, but these contributions were outside the
scope of our work.
humanitarian and other assistance to help ensure the success of U.N.
peacekeeping operations.
We disagree with State's and DOD's position that indirect contributions
should be excluded from our analysis. Excluding these contributions presents
an incomplete picture of the important contribution that the United States
has made over the years to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping efforts achieve
their objectives.
We agree with State and DOD that U.S. operations are undertaken to promote
U.S. interests. DOD argued, however, that our report indirectly included or
overstated certain DOD operations as supporting U.N. operations, without
providing specific instances. But we believe that all the operations we
included clearly helped specific U.N. peacekeeping operations. For example,
DOD and State have concurred with several of our previous reports that
characterized U.S. and NATO military forces as providing support for U.N.
and other international organizations' peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Kosovo. In those reports, we noted that the stated
objectives of U.S. and NATO military operations include providing a secure
environment for U.N. civilian police and other U.N.-led operations. 11
Nearly two-thirds, or $15.5 billion, of the total estimated costs that we
identified as indirect contributions are attributable to U.S. military
operations in support of the two NATO-led peace operations in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Kosovo.
We agree that our report should not be used for the purpose of offsetting
U.N. assessments. We do not think indirect contributions should be construed
as a contribution for which the United Nations should reimburse the United
States and have revised this report to remove any characterization that
indirect contributions are provided directly to U.N. operations.
11 See Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward Achieving the Dayton
Agreement's Goals (GAO/NSIAD-97-132, May 5, 1997); Bosnia Peace Operation:
Pace of Implementing Dayton Accelerated as International Involvement
Increased (GAO/NSIAD-98-138, June 5, 1998); Bosnia Peace Operation: Mission,
Structure, and Transitions Strategy of NATO's Stabilization Force
(GAO/NSIAD-99-19, October 8, 1998); and Balkans Security: Current and
Projected Factors Affecting Regional Stability (GAO/NSIAD-00-125BR, April
24, 2001).
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after
the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees, the Secretaries of State, Defense,
Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury; the Attorney General of the United
States; the Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development;
the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Undersecretary General
for Peacekeeping Operations; and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call
me at (202) 512-8979. Key contributors to this report were Tet Miyabara, B.
Patrick Hickey, Ann Baker, Norman Thorpe, and James M. Strus.
Joseph A. Christoff, Director International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
We estimated direct contributions to peacekeeping operations by analyzing
and compiling cost data from a wide range of U.S. and U.N. records,
including the President's required annual reports to the Congress on U.S.
assistance to U.N. peacekeeping operations for calendar years 1995 through
2000.1 We also reviewed cost data from the Departments of
Defense (DOD), State, Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and the Treasury; the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); and the U.N. Department
of Peacekeeping Operations. In general, the information on direct
contributions used in this report was based on agency expenditures data
included in U.S. budget documents. We discussed the data with officials at
each agency. According to State and DOD officials and reports, direct
contributions are U.S. programs and actions that provide direct support to
specific U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) current and past due
payments for U.N. peacekeeping assessments, and (2) the cost to State and
DOD for providing and supporting civilian police, U.S. military units,
individual troops, and military observers to serve as part of a U.N.
peacekeeping operation.
To estimate the cost2 of indirect contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
operations, we analyzed and compiled information from several U.S.
agencies about the cost and purpose of their programs in countries with U.N.
peacekeeping operations. DOD provided its available data on incremental
costs for overseas contingency operations.3 Officials from State, USAID,
Justice, and Agriculture provided data on their security,
development, and assistance programs in countries hosting U.N. peacekeeping
operations. 4 Officials from Commerce and Treasury provided data on their
technical assistance programs in the same
1Section 407 of the Foreign Relations Act of 1994 to 1995 requires the
President to provide the Congress with annual reports on how the United
States used peacekeeping to advance U.S. interests. The reports also list
the costs of DOD and State support to each U.N. peacekeeping operation, most
of which are for services and materials provided on a reimbursable basis
(P.L. 103-236).
2Although we use the term "cost" throughout this report as a convenience, we
are actually referring to a combination of actual expenditures and
obligations.
3As used in this report, DOD's "incremental costs" means those directly
attributable costs that would not have been incurred if it were not for the
operation. It should be recognized that DOD's financial systems cannot
reliably determine costs and that only the total obligations are captured by
the department's accounting systems. The military services use various
management information systems to identify incremental obligations and to
estimate costs.
4 All Department of Justice programs included as indirect contributions to
U.N. peacekeeping operations were funded by the Department of State and
USAID.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
countries. Officials from all of these agencies provided actual expenditures
for programs where they had data and obligations of funds for programs where
they did not have actual expenditures data. We limited the scope of this
review to fiscal years 1996 through 2001, after determining that useful
program data prior to this period was not generally available. Most of the
cost data for fiscal year 2001 were based on agency officials' estimates or
obligations. We did not independently determine the reliability of available
data on costs associated with U.N. peacekeeping operations.
For purposes of our analysis, we defined indirect contributions as U.S.
programs and activities that are located in the same area as an ongoing U.N.
peacekeeping operation and have objectives that help the peacekeeping
operation achieve its mandated objectives, but which are not an official
part of the U.N. operation. We used this definition because the U.S.
government does not systematically define indirect contributions to
peacekeeping and does not collect cost and other data on these indirect
contributions, according to State and DOD officials. To determine the
estimated cost of U.S. programs and activities included in our definition of
indirect contributions, we (1) analyzed the mandates of each of the 33
peacekeeping operations, (2) identified colocated U.S. programs and
activities with objectives that corresponded to the objectives of each
mandate, and (3) estimated the costs associated with those programs during
the periods each U.N. peacekeeping operation was present. If the United
Nations terminated a peacekeeping operation prior to the end of a given
fiscal year, we included only the costs associated with U.S. programs
expended up to that point, if detailed U.S. program expenditure data allowed
us to make that determination. If detailed data were not available, we
generally included the full estimated fiscal year cost for the U.S. programs
associated with U.N. peacekeeping operations terminated after 5 months or
more into that fiscal year.
We discussed this definition of indirect contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
operations and our methodology for arriving at these costs with agency
officials. Discussions with these officials and our analysis of prior GAO
reports suggest that we define indirect contributions more broadly than some
DOD officials but less broadly than some State and USAID officials. For
example, DOD officials stated that the costs of U.S. operations not led by
U.N. commanders are not part of the U.N.'s assessment of peacekeeping costs
and should not be considered as contribution to U.N. operations. Therefore,
DOD does not consider the costs of its contributions to the coalition-led
peacekeeping forces deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo as contributions to the
U.N. peacekeeping operations there. DOD officials stated that these forces
were not deployed
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
specifically or exclusively to support the colocated U.N. peacekeeping
operations. We have stated in previous reports that these forces did provide
the general security necessary for the colocated U.N. peacekeeping
operations to carry out their mandates, however, so we included their
estimated incremental costs as indirect contributions.5
In contrast to DOD officials, some State and USAID officials define indirect
contributions more broadly than we did. For example, USAID officials and
documents concluded that almost all of its bilateral humanitarian and
development assistance in the African countries hosting U.N. peacekeeping
operations could be considered indirect support for those operations. In
some cases, we excluded those programs from our estimated cost of indirect
contributions because the mandates of specific U.N. peacekeeping operations
in Africa did not include humanitarian and development objectives. In other
cases, we excluded the costs of regional programs and activities State and
USAID officials described as indirectly contributing to U.N. peacekeeping
operations because they could not isolate a portion of these regional costs
to ascribe to a particular country hosting a peacekeeping operation. (App.
II provides more detail on some of these other U.S. programs and
activities).
As discussed earlier, we analyzed the mandates for the 33 U.N. peacekeeping
operations conducted between fiscal years 1996 and 2001. We compared the
objectives, locations, and time frames of each U.N. peacekeeping operation
to the U.S. military and civilian assistance programs located in the same
countries that were not under the direct control of the U.N. peacekeeping
operation. In order to systematically determine which U.S. programs and
activities to include as indirect contributions to each U.N. peacekeeping
operation, we placed each U.N. peacekeeping operation into one of three
categories, depending upon the nature and the expansiveness of its mandates:
traditional, multidimensional, and nation-building.
We classified 14 of the operations as having traditional and relatively
restricted peacekeeping mandates. These operations generally monitor or
supervise cease-fire and other peace agreements between formerly warring
parties. Their tasks can include monitoring of border demarcation, exchange
of prisoners, and demobilization efforts. Because the
5See Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward Achieving the Dayton
Agreement's Goals (GAO/NSIAD-97-132, May 5, 1997); and Balkans Security:
Current and Projected Factors Affecting Regional Stability
(GAO/NSIAD-00-125BR, April 24, 2001).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
narrowness of their mandates tend to preclude a role for the operation in
humanitarian or other assistance tasks, most traditional peacekeeping
operations do not have identifiable indirect costs associated with them.
We classified 17 operations as having multidimensional mandates. These
operations tend to go beyond traditional peace monitoring tasks by
attempting to restore or create conditions more conducive to a lasting
peace. Multidimensional operations include one or more of the following
tasks in their mandates:
* Monitor, supervise, train, or reconstruct police forces and otherwise
support efforts to restore rule of law;
* Monitor, assist, or institute efforts to improve human rights;
* Support, facilitate, coordinate, or safeguard humanitarian relief
operations or deliveries;
* Monitor, support, coordinate, or safeguard assistance provided to help
refugees or internally displaced persons return home and reintegrate into
the society of the affected country or region; and
* Conduct, support, or coordinate elections and other democracy-building
efforts.
For each multidimensional operation, we included the reported costs of
relevant U.S. bilateral assistance programs in the indirect cost total for
the operation. We determined these on a case-by-case basis, depending upon
the scope of the mandate. For example, we included U.S. bilateral elections
support programs and democracy-building assistance for countries where the
colocated U.N. peacekeeping force included election supervision or support
among its objectives. Furthermore, we excluded the reported costs of other
types of U.S. bilateral assistance from the indirect cost total where we
could not find an associated objective in the mandates of the colocated U.N.
peacekeeping operations. For example, the U.N. Mission in Bosnia and
Herzegovina is concerned primarily with efforts to monitor, supervise,
train, or reconstruct police forces and otherwise support efforts to restore
rule of law. We therefore excluded the substantial costs associated with
U.S. humanitarian, democracy-building, and long-term economic development
assistance provided to Bosnia through the Organization of Security and
Cooperation in Europe and other international organizations between fiscal
years 1996 and 2001.
We classified two recent U.N. peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and in East
Timor as having nation-building mandates. In addition to some of the
multidimensional tasks previously listed, the U.N. Security Council granted
these operations the tasks and the executive authority relating to
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
the construction or reconstruction of political, legal, and economic
institutions. They are also responsible for the interim administration of
these countries while helping them develop the capacity for self-government.
In these cases, we included the costs of all U.S. bilateral security and
assistance programs, development aid, and concurrent DOD operations
conducted within Kosovo and East Timor during the time span of the two
operations. We excluded only regional assistance programs with costs that
could not be attributable specifically to those two states.
We conducted our review from July through December 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Other U.S. Contributions During Peacekeeping Operations
The United States has also conducted other security and assistance programs
and activities that reinforce the objectives of particular U.N. peacekeeping
operations but whose objectives cannot be related to the mandates of the
peacekeeping operation. For this reason, we have excluded these programs and
activities from our tabulation of the costs associated with indirect support
for U.N. peacekeeping operations.
These other contributions include the following categories:
* U.S. bilateral humanitarian and development assistance to countries
hosting U.N. peacekeeping operations that do not have mandates to conduct
humanitarian or development activities. For example, the United Nations has
kept a small monitoring operation in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and
Syria since 1948. Given the narrow focus of its mandate, we excluded as
indirect contributions, the billions of dollars in assistance programs the
United States provides to some of these countries each year.
* U.S. regional assistance activities and operations whose costs cannot be
linked to a particular country hosting a peacekeeping operation because
these costs are reported only on a regional basis. For example, the State
Department provided millions of dollars in humanitarian assistance through
its African Great Lakes initiative in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to aid
refugees and displaced persons from Burundi, Rwanda, and the Congo housed in
camps in Tanzania and the Congo. State officials could not ascertain how
much assistance went specifically to support Rwanda refugees when the U.N.
peacekeeping operation was operating in Rwanda, so we did not apportion part
of this program as an indirect contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping
operation in Rwanda.
* U.S. security assistance to train and equip other nations' military
forces, allowing them to participate more effectively in peacekeeping
operations in general. For example, State and DOD have provided significant
amounts of assistance through their contributions to NATO's Partnership for
Peace Program. This assistance trains military units in Ukraine, Central
Asia, and the Baltic States to participate in NATO-led or U.N.-led
peacekeeping operations, but this assistance could not be ascribed as
contributions to specific U.N. peacekeeping operations. Moreover, DOD and
State have provided peacekeeping training through the African Crisis
Response Initiative and the African Regional Peacekeeping Program to at
least 14 African states and two regional organizations. State officials
could not break out the portions of these programs that specifically
assisted troops assigned to ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operations. We
therefore did not attribute a portion of these costs as indirect support for
particular U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Appendix II: Other U.S. Contributions During Peacekeeping Operations
* U.S. military operations not addressed by a U.N. Security Council
resolution, or conducted in support of other U.N. peace activities in which
no U.N. peacekeeping operations are present. This category includes a
variety of U.S. military contingency operations with costs that are excluded
from our definition of indirect contributions. For example, the United
States and NATO conducted intensive air strikes against Serbia to bring
about a peace agreement in Kosovo in 1999, but they did so without a
supporting resolution from the U.N. Security Council. In addition, the
United States conducted military strikes against Iraq and maintains a
military blockade of Iraq in the Persian Gulf in support of U.N.-sanctioned
embargoes and weapons inspection requirements. Furthermore, U.S. military
forces in the Republic of Korea simultaneously serve as part of the U.N.
Command as well as part of the U.S. Forces Korea and the Republic of
Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, but these forces are not contributing to
an ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operation. Finally, the United States
contributes troops to the Multinational Force and Observers, a peacekeeping
force deployed in the Sinai peninsula following the signing of the Camp
David Accords, after the United Nations failed to reach agreement on
deploying a U.N. peacekeeping force.
Appendix III: U.S. Indirect Contributions
Of the $24.2 billion in indirect U.S. contributions to peacekeeping
operations, approximately 90 percent, or $21.8 billion, came from DOD; about
6 percent ($1.5 billion) from USAID; about 4 percent ($810 million) from the
Department of State; and less than 1 percent came from the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury for technical assistance programs ($39
million). Over $21.6 billion of the DOD contribution was provided for
military operations with objectives that helped colocated U.N. peacekeeping
operations achieve their mandated objectives. 1 The remainder was provided
for humanitarian demining programs and for other equipment and services
provided to U.N. peacekeepers or to regional security forces supporting
specific U.N. peacekeeping operations. Figure 3 shows the locations of U.S.
military operations that provided indirect assistance to U.N. peacekeeping
operations.2
1This figure consists primarily of incremental costs tracked in DOD's
contingency operation cost reports. Contingency operations are those that go
beyond the routine deployment or stationing of U.S. forces abroad, but that
fall short of large-scale theater warfare. DOD figures include the costs of
additional pay, training, facilities, transport, fuels, repairs, and
replacement parts for an operation.
2DOD reported additional costs associated with Operations Able Sentry and
Uphold Democracy as reimbursable direct contributions to U.N. operations in
Macedonia and Haiti, respectively.
Appendix III: U.S. Indirect Contributions
Figure 3: U.S. Military Operations Providing Indirect Contributions to U.N.
Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years 1996-2001
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
The United Nations conducted 33 U.N. peacekeeping operations from fiscal
years 1996 through 2001. Table 1 provides total direct and indirect
contributions by each agency, and table 2 provides a breakout of the U.N.
peace operations by category and provides information about the U.S. direct
and indirect contributions to each operation.
Table 1: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Operations by
Agency, Fiscal Years 1996-2001 (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in
thousands)
Direct contribution
Department or
agency Assessed Voluntary Total direct Indirect contributions Total
State $3,203,169a $248,382 $3,451,551 $809,417 $4,260,969c
Defense 0 1,205 1,205 21,786,332 21,787,536c
USAID 0 0 0 1,526,697 1,526,697
Otherb 0 0 0 39,720 39,720
Total $3,203,169 $249,586c $3,452,755c $24,162,166 $27,614,921c
aIncludes the cost of repaying U.S. arrearages to the United Nations.
bIncludes contributions from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and
Treasury.
cAdjusted to account for rounding error.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
Table 2: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping
Operations by Mission, Fiscal Years 1996-2001
U.S. contributions
(Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in
thousands)
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S.
agencies (if any) Direct Indirect Total
U.N. peacekeeping operation Duration
Traditional peacekeeping operations
U.N. Truce Supervision Organization in
June 1948 -DOD: Military observer cost-of-living allowances
$ 37,990 $82 $38,072
Palestine (Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) (UNTSO)
U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
Jan. 1949 -None 10,834 0 10,834
U.N. Disengagement Observer Force (Syrian Golan Heights) (UNDOF)
June 1974 -None 47,753 0 47,753
U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
Mar. 1964 -USAID: Bicommunal humanitarian programs
35,034 46,935 81,969
U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Mar. 1978 -State: Support for
Israel-Lebanon border monitoring group
DOD: Demining training
213,379 8,961 222,340
b
Jan. 1996 -None 0U.N. Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (Croatia)a (UNMOP)
U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM)
Apr. 1991-DOD: Military exercises and operations to deter Iraqi aggression
25,891 5,807,153 5,833,044
U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) Aug. 1993 -USAID: Food aid State:
Military education and training DOD: Demining training
31,028 91,085 122,113
U.N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) July 2000 -USAID: Border
development program State: Military education and training, demining
71,300 3,705 75,005
U.N. Confidence Restoration Operation (Croatia) (UNCRO)
Mar. 1995-Jan. 1996
cc
None
U.N. Preventive Deployment
Force Mar. 1995- DOD: Support for U.S. 41,002 91,055 132,057
(Macedonia) (UNPREDEP) Feb. 1999 forces serving with
U.N. peacekeeping
operation
U.N. Verification Mission in 1,073 1,073
Guatemala Jan.-May 1997 None 0
(MINUGUA)d
U.N. Observer Mission in July 1998- 25,715
Sierra Leone DOD and State: 4,258 21,457
(UNOMSIL) Oct. 1999 Equipment and
services for African
peacekeeping forces
Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
U.S. contributions
(Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in
thousands)
Indirect U.S.
contributions by U.S.
agencies (if any) Direct Indirect Total
U.N. peacekeeping operation Duration
U.N. Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (UNMOT)
Dec. 1994-May 2000
State: Refugee assistance
USAID: Food aid for refugees
14,828 33,433 48,261
Subtotal for traditional operations $534,370 $6,103,866 $6,638,236
Multidimensional peacekeeping operations
U.N. Mission for the Referendum in Western Saharae (Morocco) (MINURSO)
Apr. 1991 -None 25,429 0 25,429
U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)
Dec. 1995 -DOD: Troops for NATO-led coalition enforcing military provisions
of the peace agreement
State: Police and judicial training, demining
Justice: Police and
judicial training
323,516 11,680,585 12,004,101
U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) Oct. 1999 -DOD and State: Support and
training for African peacekeeping forces
USAID: Food aid
278,698 221,692 500,390
U.N. Organization Mission in Dec. 1999
the Democratic - USAID: Emergency 117,262 129,071 246,333
Republic of the Congo (MONUC) assistance and food
aid
Agriculture: Food
donations
f
U.N. Protection Force (Bosnia, Croatia, Feb. 1992-DOD: Aircraft maintain
78,932 78,932 Macedonia) (UNPROFOR) Jan. 1996 no-fly zone over Bosnia
U.N. Transitional Administration for E. Slavonia, Baranja, and W. Sirmium
(Croatia) (UNTAES) Jan. 1996-Jan.1998 State: Refugee assistance and police
training
66,706 15,983 82,689
U.N. Civilian Police Support Group (Croatia) (UNPSG)
Jan.-Oct. 1998
U.N. Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) Sep. 1993-Sep. 1997
USAID: Food aid and disaster relief
DOD and State: Support for African peacekeeping forces
12,259 276,657 288,916
U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR)
Oct. 1993-Mar. 1997
USAID: Food aid
DOD: Support for demining
State: Refugee assistance
15,507 140,838 156,345
Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
U.S. contributions
(Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in
thousands)
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S.
agencies (if any) Direct Indirect Total
U.N. peacekeeping operation Duration
U.N. Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM
III) Feb. 1995-Jun. 1997
U.N. Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) June 1997-Feb. 1999
USAID: Food aid, combatant retraining, State: Refugee assistance and
demining
184,949 307,068 492,017
U.N. Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA)
Apr. 1998-Feb. 2000
State: Military education and training
USAID: Food aid
0 968
U.N. Mission in Haiti DOD: Support for
(UNMIH) Sep. 1993- U.S. 75,488 216,490 291,978
Feb. 1996 forces serving with
U.N.
U.N. Support Mission in
Haiti (UNSMIH) July 1996- peacekeepers
U.N. Transition Mission in July 1997
Haiti (UNTMIH) U.N. Aug.-Nov. 1997 State and DOD:
Civilian Police Mission in Dec.1997- Support for the
Haiti national police
(MIPONUH) Mar. 2000
U.N. Mission in East
Timor (UNAMET) June-Oct. 1999 DOD: support for 2,141 19,575 21,716
international coalition
forces
State: Support for
civilian police monitors
USAID: transition
assistance
Subtotal for multidimensional operations $1,180,887 $13,008,927 $14,189,814
Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
U.S. contributions
(Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in
thousands)
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S.
agencies (if any) Direct Indirect Total
U.N. peacekeeping operation Duration Nation-Building peacekeeping operations
U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
June 1999 -U.S. Agencies
DOD: Troops for NATO-led coalition enforcing provisions of cease-fire and
withdrawal agreements, public security, and assistance for local civilian
protection units
State: Refugee and
economic assistance
Agriculture: Food
donations
USAID: Refugee and
development
assistance
Justice: Police and
judicial training
Treasury/Commerce:
Technical assistance
446,175 4,833,670 5,279,845
U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
Oct.1999 -U.S. Agencies
DOD: Humanitarian and civic assistance
State: Support for U.N. administration and law enforcement
USAID: Food aid, refugee assistance, and democracy building
Justice: Police and judicial training
316,659 208,586 525,245
Subtotal for nation-building operations $762,834 $5,042,256 $5,805,090
Total contributions for operations $2,478,091 $24,155,049 $26,633,140
126,620 0 126,620
U.N. arrearage payments 847,830 0 847,830
Support for U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission
Headquarters 215 0 215
U.S. Military Observer Group overhead 0 7,105 7,105
Assessments appropriated by the Congress for U.N. peacekeeping operations
but not sent to the United Nations as of January 31, 2002
Grand totalg $3,452,755 $24,162,166 $27,614,921
aThis operation is located in an area of disputed ownership between Croatia
and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
bDirect costs are included in UNMIBH.
Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
c Direct and indirect costs for UNCRO are combined with costs for UNTAES.
dThe U.N. mission was part of a larger non-U.N. regional peace operation
with the same acronym.
eMorocco, Mauritania, and a local independence group dispute the ownership
of this territory.
fIndirect costs are included in UNMIBH.
gTotals are adjusted to account for rounding errors.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S.
Agency for International Development
Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select
"Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO
Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, D.C. 20013
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
Visit GAO's Document GAO Building
Distribution Center Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G
Streets, NW) Washington, D.C. 20013
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected], or
Federal Programs 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering
system).
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***