<<  <  >  >>

Page 11

the first comprehensive analysis of how much the United States had spent in support of

UN peace operations, defined as "actions taken in support of U.N. resolutions." The total

was an astounding $6.6 billion for fiscal years 1992 through 1995. The State Department

(the traditional source of funds for UN peacekeeping activities) accounted for about $1.8

billion. However, the Defense Department accounted for about $3.4 billion, the U.S.

Agency for International Development about $1.3 billion, and other federal agencies the

remainder.

The subsequent CRS report provided even more startling figures. It found that

more than $11 billion had been spent on "U.S. international peacekeeping commitments"

for fiscal years 1992 through 1997. That report examined the regions covered by the

GAO report--the former Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, and Rwanda--as well as other areas,

including Iraq-Kuwait, Western Sahara, Angola, Georgia, Guatemala, Peru-Ecuador,

Cambodia, Liberia, and Korea. But the CRS study was more narrowly drawn than the

GAO report because it dealt exclusively with estimated Department of Defense expendi-

tures in support of those operations. If the GAO report is any guide, the expenditures by

other federal agencies in support of the United Nations could amount to an additional

several billion dollars. In total, therefore, as much as $15 billion may have been spent

since 1992 on international peacekeeping activities.

The CRS report noted that a State Department compilation of so-called voluntary

contributions to support UN peacekeeping operations in 1995 showed that the United

States contributed 54 percent of the total cost. That was over and above regular assess-

ments for peacekeeping assistance.30

The Dubious Legality of Executive Branch Contributions

The term "voluntary" is, of course, a subject of much dispute. It is not precisely

clear on what legal or constitutional basis, if any, the administration makes "voluntary"

contributions to UN military activities and then fails to seek reimbursement or credit for

them. However, in a letter to Congress in which he expressed his opposition to the

Bartlett amendment, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson said that it

would be inappropriate to be reimbursed for "non-blue-helmeted peacekeeping operations

that we choose to undertake, such as the Gulf War, because they serve our national inter-

ests."31

Richardson's claim was mostly beside the point because there has never been any

stated intention by Bartlett or anyone else to seek UN credit for waging the Gulf War. In

addition, neither the GAO report nor the CRS study included the costs of the Gulf War in

analyzing the extent of U.S. financial support for UN operations. The reason is simple:

although the Gulf War was fought under UN resolutions, the U.S. Congress eventually

authorized the military effort, and the administration then sought reimbursement for some

of the costs from other members of the multinational coalition that waged the war. There