<<  <  >  >>

Page 9

have been GAO and CRS studies, no congressional hearings have been devoted exclu-

sively to exploring the issue.

The basic outlines of what has transpired, however, are apparent. Soon after the

Clinton administration took power, a policy was set in motion that circumvented the

constitutional requirement that Congress have the exclusive authority to raise and appro-

priate revenue. Article I, Section 8, also provides that Congress shall have the power to

declare war and regulate the armed forces. Yet the administration did not seek advance

approval from Congress to use Department of Defense personnel, resources, and equip-

ment to support UN causes and missions. Instead, it redirected funds appropriated by

Congress for functions of the U.S. military and other government agencies to support the

United Nations.

In congressional testimony, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeane

Kirkpatrick strongly suggested that the practice was illegal, noting,

[O]ne of my deep concerns about current practices with regard to

funding of "peacekeeping" operations and "peace enforcement" and "peace

building" and whatever we call it, is that it, I believe, evades the require-

ment of congressional authorization and appropriation.

It evades also the constitutional requirement that the Congress be

consulted and, finally relied upon to declare war.

I think both of these regular, legitimate, constitutional functions of

the Congress are eroded and diminished, ignored, in current practices

concerning the funding of peacekeeping, and that bothers me.25

Kirkpatrick went on to say that the administration made a decision "to move the

peacekeeping function and its funding from the State Department and the State Depart-

ment budget to the Pentagon," where "new financial resources" were obtained. Peace-

keeping, she charged, had "gained access to the accounts which were established for other

purposes, which were authorized by the Congress and appropriated by the Congress for

other purposes, such as the training of our military forces and the acquisition of spare

parts and necessary military equipment."26

Confirmation that such an approach was being pursued was provided by a top

Clinton administration official, then-acting assistant secretary of state for international

organizations George Ward, in an appearance before the United Nations Association in

1995. In discussing the so-called U.S. debt to the United Nations, Ward admitted, "We've

provided an awful lot from the defense budget to the United Nations." He explained, "In

1994, when we were assessed $1.2 billion for peacekeeping, our nonassessed but volun-

tary contributions to peacekeeping--which almost all came from Defense Department