Rear Admiral Gene LaRocque (USN, Ret.),
Pres., Center for Defense Information
HOST:
Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr. (USN, Ret.)
Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH:
David T. Johnson
DIRECTOR of TELEVISION:
Mark Sugg
SENIOR PRODUCER & NARRATOR:
Ira Shorr
PRODUCERS:
Glenn Baker
Daniel Sagalyn
Stephen Sapienza
PRINCIPAL ANALYST & SCRIPTWRITER:
Stephen Sapienza
SEGMENT PRODUCER:
Stephen Sapienza
VIDEO GRAPHICS:
Adam Luther
ORIGINATION:
Washington, D.C.
PROGRAM NO.:
823
INITIAL BROADCAST:
19 February 1995
CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"
(Center for Defense Information).
(C) Copyright 1995, Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.
Videotapes also available.
Rep. HOWARD BERMAN, (D-CA)
House International Relations Committee
LCOL KARL FARRIS
Director, US Army's Peacekeeping Institute
SARAH SEWALL
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Peacekeeping/Peace Enforcement Policy,
Department of Defense
THOMAS SHEEHY
International Regulatory Affairs, Heritage Foundation
SHASHI THAROOR
U.N. Under-Secretary General's Special Assistant for Peacekeeping Operations
With additional commentary from:
Warren CHRISTOPHER
U.S. Secretary of State
Rep. Sam GEDJENSEN (D-CT)
Rep. Benjamin GILMAN (R-NC)
LCOL HOLTON
US soldier in UN operation, Skopie, Macedonia
Increasingly, the United Nations, with the help of its member states, has attempted to respond to these threats to peace. But while many consider UN peacekeeping a linchpin to world peace, there are some who see it as a dangerous illusion.
What is America's role in UN peacekeeping?
["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]
Rear Admiral EUGENE CARROLL (USN, Ret.): How many Americans will wear this distinctive blue beret of the UN peacekeeper in the future? When and under what conditions?
The 104th Congress is now shaping answers to those questions and our program today will look at the issues they will debate in determining US support for UN peacekeeping in the future. Upon their decisions rests a lot of money and perhaps many lives. What do you think they should decide?
NARRATOR: The United States has by far the most powerful military on the planet. The Clinton administration recently requested $258 billion for its 1996 military budget, intended to finance the military's ability to fight two major wars nearly simultaneously anywhere in the world and, if necessary, without the help of allies.
There are over 270,000 American soldiers stationed in 31 countries around the globe. The supplies for these troops are prepositioned -- the tank engines rumbling -- and the jet engines fired up -- ready for war.
However, the threat to peace no longer comes from the specter of foreign armies conquering regions of the globe. It has been replaced by the realities of civil wars, genocide, starvation, refugee crises, and tribal struggles.
Dr. SHASHI THAROOR: There's been a tremendous evolution in peacekeeping since the end of the Cold War. In the first 43 years of the UN's history, we had 13 peacekeeping operations. After the Cold War, we've had 13 in 43 months, and then another eight have followed. So 34 peacekeeping operations, a tremendous rate of acceleration.
NARRATOR: Dr. Shashi Tharoor, from India, is the special assistant to the under-secretary general for Peacekeeping Operations at the United Nations. Presently, there are 17 UN peacekeeping operations in places like Cyprus, Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia.
Since 1990, the number of UN troops in the field has climbed from 10,000 to over 70,000.
Not only has the number and size of peacekeeping operations grown, but the nature of the operations has changed, as well.
Dr. THAROOR: More and more of them are within states, in the middle of civil wars and intrastate conflicts, rather than the kinds of conflicts between member states that the UN was predominantly handling in the past.
NARRATOR: "Peacekeeping" and "peace operations" are broad generic terms that are imprecise when trying to describe the array of activities the United Nations and America's military undertake to promote, maintain, enforce, or enhance the possibilities for peace.
The word "peace" might convey the misleading impression that there is no risk of danger in such operations. But as we've seen in situations like Somalia and Bosnia, the potential for bloodshed is very real.
COL Karl Farris is the director of the US Army's Peacekeeping Institute at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The Peacekeeping Institute was created by the Army to better prepare its commanders and their staffs to deal with their increased involvement in peace operations. According to the Army field manual, there are three types of peacekeeping operations.
LCOL KARL FARRIS (USA): What we define as a peace operation includes military support to diplomatic efforts. That could be military exchanges. That could be a preventive deployment, such as we have in Macedonia right now. That's the lower end.
The next would be traditional peacekeeping, inter- position forces, observer forces, lightly armed, not really expected to do any kind of military action.
And at the upper end of these peace operations, we have peace enforcement. That is where the use of force or the threat of the use of force is there to compel compliance with an internationally recognized mandate.
THOMAS SHEEHY: Traditionally, United Nations peacekeeping generally had a situation where the belligerents had agreed to a peace and the UN troops essentially acted as a buffer zone. This is the situation in Cyprus, the Middle East and elsewhere. With the end of the Cold War, the feeling, promoted particularly by Secretary General Boutros Ghali, was to be much more aggressive.
NARRATOR: Thomas Sheehy, of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., has visited several UN peacekeeping operations and published many articles on the subject of US involvement in UN peacekeeping.
Mr. SHEEHY: Without a doubt, the Clinton administration came in with a very pro-UN policy. There was talk about estab-lishing a UN standing army. The Clinton administration generally was staffed by people who had been very -- who had advocated a very forceful role for the United Nations throughout the years.
NARRATOR: One example of the Clinton administration's commitment to advancing US foreign policy through peace operations was the creation of the Office of Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Policy at the Pentagon.
SARAH SEWALL: My office was created in 1993 at the outset of the Clinton administration as part of the recognition of the role of peace operations in advancing US national security interests in the post-Cold War period. So, we're a new office created to meet a new need and a new environment.
NARRATOR: As the deputy assistant secretary at the Pentagon's Office of Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Policy, Sarah Sewall is responsible for communicating the Clinton administration's rationale for participation in UN-sanctioned peacekeeping efforts.
Ms. SEWALL: We do this for a variety of reasons. One, because these conflicts can pose risks to regional stability in areas that are important to us for a variety of reasons. And, two, because the cumulative effect of conflicts worldwide, left unchecked, certainly takes us further away from the world that we want to see, a world of stability and increased prospects for democracy and economic growth.
NARRATOR: But the new Republican majority in Congress is questioning US support for UN peacekeeping activities.
Rep. BENJAMIN GILMAN (R-NC) (before House International Relations Committee, January 24, 1995):
"This legislation is one of ten bills included in the 'Contract with America' to be considered in the first hundred days of the 104th Congress.
"Specifically, the National Security Act contains provisions that will, one, place tight restrictions on foreign command of US troops in the UN peacekeeping operations. Secondly, ensure that we get full credit in our UN peacekeeping assessments for our incremental and indirect DoD spending for UN peacekeeping operations. And, third, require reports and detailed information from the president to the Congress before we provide any funding or troops to a UN peacekeeping mission."
NARRATOR: Opponents of the National Security Revitalization Act believe that the larger impact of such legislation would be a withdrawal of US support from UN peacekeeping, thus jeopardizing the UN's ability to perform peacekeeping operations.
Rep. SAM GEDJENSEN (D-CT) (before House International Relations Committee, January 24, 1995): "The actions affecting our ability to cooperate within the UN will be similar to those taken when the United States refused to join the League of Nations. It will either force us out, for all practical purposes, of all UN operations, forcing us to act unilaterally, or it will destroy the United Nations."
Secretary of State WARREN CHRISTOPHER (before House International Relations Committee, January 26, 1995): "In the current period, such a proposal would eliminate all US payments for UN peacekeeping. It would almost certainly lead our allies in NATO and Japan to follow suit, for they also make voluntary contributions of considerable magnitude.
"Under the current circumstances, such a proposal if enacted in law would threaten to end UN peacekeeping overnight. It would leave us with an unacceptable option of only the choice between acting alone or doing nothing when emergencies occur."
NARRATOR: The hot button issue of the current UN debate centers on whether US troops should be placed under foreign command during a peacekeeping operation.
COL FARRIS: Historically, there are other examples, of course, where US elements and units have fallen under the operational control and even operational command of foreign commanders, whereas the units themselves still remain under US command. World War II provides a number of examples, of course, as do some later operations, too. So, I don't see that quite as large an issue.
NARRATOR: COL Farris believes it's a misperception that US troops would be subservient to UN commanders during peacekeeping operations.
COL FARRIS: US forces will always be under US command. However, the commander of a broad contingent may be a UN commander, but he does not exercise direct command over US forces, give them orders. He issues orders and directions to the US commander, who then commands that unit.
LCOL HOLTON: "My name is LCOL Holton. I'm the commander of Task Force 650 Second Infantry, a part of Task Force Able Century in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.
"We are under the operational command of the United Nations Command, which is a Danish brigadier general here in Macedonia. I also report all operational matters to him from operations here in Macedonia. But in addition to that, I also report to my national chain of command through a joint task force, Provide Promise, which has a forward element in Zagreb, Croatia."
Dr. THAROOR: What we have in the United Nations is not command in the full sense of the term. We do not, for example, hire, fire, reward, punish or discipline the soldiers of countries. What we have is national contingents who are given to the United Nations for a specific purpose, for a specific mission authorized by the Security Council.
For those purposes, they're under the operational control of the United Nations, which means that the force commander can tell them what to do. But it is always within a mandate already approved by their governments. First of all, in the case of the US, already approved by the US in the Security Council, and then approved by the US in contributing the troops.
NARRATOR: Historically, US troop contributions to more traditional UN peacekeeping operations have been low. Currently, of the 70,000 UN troops worldwide, only 963 are American troops. The US is ranked 26th among countries contributing troops to the UN.
Another issue of concern for some members of Congress is the amount of money the US spends each year on UN peacekeeping operations. Thomas Sheehy explains why Republicans want to trim back US contributions to UN peacekeeping.
Mr. SHEEHY: The US pays approximately a little over 30 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget. Now there are also "in kind" contributions, which escalate that contribution. So, it is quite considerable. The US pays about 25 percent of the United Nations operating budget overall. Clearly, those quotas were established a long time ago and there is pressure on the Hill to reexamine why we pay 30-plus percent.
Dr. THAROOR: The US is an extremely important player in peacekeeping in every respect. It's important because of its weight on the Security Council and it's important because it actually pays the largest single share of peacekeeping costs. At this stage, 31 percent. It's going to go down to 25 in October. But there are a few things that the American public should know about that. First of all, the UN, too, has its contracts with America, many contracts. For every dollar the UN spends on peacekeeping, it gets 31 cents back in contracts with the American government and American employees.
NARRATOR: The total budget for UN peacekeeping activities last year was $3.7 billion. The US share of that was
$1.1 billion. While the US contribution was higher than any other country, when compared to our richest allies, the US really paid less on a per citizen basis.
Dr. THAROOR: US contributions to peacekeeping are the highest in dollar terms. However, some of the smaller countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, contribute more in cash terms per capita. That is, the money they give in relation to the size of their population is quite significant.
NARRATOR: Above and beyond US financial contributions, the Republican National Security Revitalization Act calls for the UN to compensate the US military for "in kind" services it provides to UN operations. COL Farris provides an example of "in kind" contributions.
COL FARRIS: In Cambodia, during the period prior to the election, when the scale of violence increased significantly, the US was asked to provide kevlar helmets and flak jackets not only to other military contingents, but also to electoral volunteers. Within a matter of days, a C-141 landed at Phnom Penh airport and delivered kevlar helmets and flak jackets to be distributed to those contingents and to electoral volunteers. So, just because you don't see US soldiers on the ground does not mean that there isn't a significant, in times -- a significant degree of US support for that operation.
Mr. SHEEHY: Frequently, the US is asked to provide logistical services that -- the argument is that many of the developing nations that contribute support -- contribute troops cannot do the fundamental logistics. And so, we frequently will hear about the US's unique logistical capabilities, and clearly we do have the best logistical capabilities in the world. People in the Congress would like some type of compensation for the provision of those services.
NARRATOR: The National Security Revitalization Act suggests that the United States deduct the cost of providing "in kind" services to the UN from the amount the US is assessed for its UN peacekeeping dues.
Dr. THAROOR: If we started deducting everything that the US military spends on activities that one way or the other are connected to UN peacekeeping, well, the US will not be -- will not need to pay the UN anything for the next couple of year, and that would be the end of the UN and of UN peacekeeping.
NARRATOR: The United States' contribution is a large portion of the UN peacekeeping budget. However, this payment is only a tiny fraction of the total US military budget. In 1994, US payments to the UN were one-third of one percent of the Department of Defense's $261 billion budget.
Put another way, the US military contributed one dollar to UN peacekeeping for every $649 it spent preparing to go to war.
Dr. THAROOR: UN peacekeeping actually is extremely cost-effective. The entire United Nations peacekeeping effort around the world, the 17 operations we have, spend one-tenth of the New York City budget, all of peacekeeping. We have 70-odd-thousand troops in the world today, supported by barely 300 people at headquarters in New York in the Department of Peacekeeping. Any defense ministry, including the Pentagon, would need from 10 to 50 times as many soldiers, and it's a darn sight cheaper than the alternative, which is war.
NARRATOR: Supporters of the UN feel that because the new legislation restricts foreign command of US troops and US contributions to UN peacekeeping operations, its effect would be to curb US participation in peacekeeping operations.
Mr. SHEEHY: I don't think the situation between the US and the UN peacekeeping is necessarily strictly a financial matter. We've been hearing a lot on the Hill lately about the financing of the UN, but I think it fundamentally comes down to what type of mission is the US prepared to play vis a vis the United Nations and UN peacekeeping.
Rep. HOWARD BERMAN (D-CA): There is a post-Cold War, neo-isolationist mood that is deeper than existed during the Cold War and the whole -- the opposition to the US being engaged in the world is greater. Peacekeeping is one of the ways we're engaged in the world. There's also growing opposition to US foreign aid programs and there's a growing sense of US protectionism in the trade arena. You see this surfacing in a number of different areas; peacekeeping is one of them.
NARRATOR: Congressman Howard Berman is an influential member of the House International Relations Committee. He's concerned about the potential consequences that the Republican legislation could have on US foreign relations and UN peacekeeping operations.
Rep. BERMAN: It is a totally devastating blow to any concept of multilateral action or collective security. In other words, to the extent that the US will get involved in the world, it will be shouldering the entire burden, taking the entire obligation and responsibility, or it'll be ignoring the problem.
NARRATOR: Some critics point to the tragic loss of US servicemen in Somalia as a reason for the US to pull away from UN peacekeeping operations.
Mr. SHEEHY: The situation in Mogadishu where we lost some 40 troops, US troops in a peacekeeping operation, that was really a watershed. That was the high point of Boutros Ghali's very aggressive peacemaking agenda, the notion that UN troops could go into a civil conflict and essentially engage in nation-building. The United Nations is backing away from that agenda. The US clearly has no interest and there just is no political support for entering into situations where -- of civil conflict. Inevitably, that will lead to the involvement of the US in the conflict and will lead to US casualties.
NARRATOR: In response to the public and congressional reaction to the deaths of US troops in Somalia, President Clinton released PDD-25, a presidential directive which sought to better define the limits of US involvement in UN peacekeeping efforts.
Rep. BERMAN: We went into Somalia for humanitarian purposes and all of a sudden -- I think primarily not as a result of the US decision, but as the result of a decision inside the secretary general's operation -- the mission changed to one of getting rid of one particular warlord in Somalia, in Mogadishu. And that change in mission, that mission creep, we paid a price for and we never quite knew what was happening. So, I would just have a clearer sense of our purpose, our goal, a better understanding of what it is, but I wouldn't stay away from anything involved with the UN because in some many places, it is a useful resource for us.
COL FARRIS: My reading of Somalia is what happened there probably had relatively little to do with who the force commander was. The deputy force commander, in fact, was an American two-star general, GEN Montgomery. I think the lessons of Somalia are not so much that we shouldn't do this again. The lessons aren't also that we should do this again. I think we're evolving in our view of peace operations.
NARRATOR: The Clinton administration directive also called on the UN to reform and strengthen its capacity to deal with the challenges of today's peacekeeping operations.
Dr. THAROOR: The reforms that the US Government is pushing have been welcomed in the United Nations and many of them, in fact, echo changes that are already in course here under the reforms that have been brought in by the new secretary general in the last couple of years. We have seen, for instance, in this Department of Peacekeeping a new degree of professionalism and a far greater injection of military expertise than was ever the case.
We now have a situation center that functions 24 hours, seven days a week, which we didn't have before. We have an increased training capacity, an increased planning capacity. We're trying to improve our logistics support.
NARRATOR: But even with reforms, there are those who have questions about US participation.
Mr. SHEEHY: Frequently, UN peacekeeping operations are not in areas that are of vital strategic interest of the United States. So, I think people on the Hill are asking, fundament-ally why should we have troops in potentially dangerous situations to support United Nations missions, peacekeeping missions.
Rep. BERMAN: I don't want to be involved with things that aren't serving US national interests. Remember, not one single peacekeeping operation ever can take place if the US chooses to exercise its veto. That's the irony of all this. We shouldn't be approving UN operations unless they're in the US interests. We have the power on the Security Council to veto them. Once we've approved and gone along with them, we shouldn't be trying to get out of any responsibility to help support them.
Dr. THAROOR: This is the one international institution we have in which governments get together to work collectively for a common purpose. International crises, by definition, require international solutions. Peacekeeping is a response to conflict, is a response to situations in which often it is not the business of any one particular country to get into. It seems to me, therefore, that the world will for the foreseeable future need peacekeeping.
NARRATOR: The world today is a much smaller place than it was some-50 years ago, when the United Nations was founded to create a global community of nations under a rule of law.
Today, the free flow of trade and communication, and the shared threats from environmental destruction have made for a more tightly knit international community, but the world is far from free of conflict and war.
Supporters of the UN see it as the best way for the nations of the world to work together in promoting peace. However, the UN can only be as effective as the member states make it. Because America is the only remaining superpower, it will have an important role to play in the UN's future performance as a global peacekeeper.
ADM CARROLL: When I served as a member of UN forces in Korea, we were not peacekeepers. We fought a bloody war in which 37,000 Americans died. Since that time, the blue beret has become a symbol of hope and progress. The Cold War is over and the UN is finally beginning to perform its function as the world's peacekeeper. It certainly needs American support and leadership in order to succeed. Let's hope that the 104th Congress is guided by wisdom and farsighted commitment to making the world a safer and more peaceful place in the future.
Until the next time, for "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I'm Eugene Carroll.
[End of broadcast.]
CONDITION OF USE: Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR"
(Center for Defense Information).
(C) Copyright 1995. Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.
[ Transcripts ] [ ADM Homepage ] [ CDI Homepage ]