Peacekeeping Options: Considerations for U.S. Policymakers and the Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (94 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
April 10, 1997 |
| Report Number |
97-454 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Marjorie Ann Browne and Nina M. Serafino, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
This document also available in PDF Image .
As recent international efforts to quell instability in many troubled nations have reached mixed
or ambiguous outcomes, many Members of Congress wish to reexamine the tools available to the
United States to address the problem. Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has been the
world's primary instrument for international response to instability and for international efforts to
achieve peace. But the 1990s expansion of U.N. peacekeeping activities, both in number and in
scope, resulted in some operations which were perceived as mismanaged, ineffective, and costly.
Concerned about the U.N.'s ability to carry out such operations effectively, many policymakers have
begun to explore the possibilities of strengthening the United Nations or employing other
organizations to help achieve peace.
In recent years, the United Nations, non-governmental and humanitarian organizations (NGOs),
and regional organizations have increasingly supplemented each other's peace and security activities.
The United States, and other nations, have organized "ad hoc" multilateral groups or coalitions
(organized under the U.N. or regional aegis) when greater flexibility or speed of action was desired.
Within the last few years, commercial firms contracted by the United States have also been brought
into peace operations.
While these public, private, and "ad hoc" organizations all play a role in peace operations, the
United Nations is uniquely active along the entire "conflict" continuum, from situations of potential
hostilities to post-conflict situations. Except for a few in Europe, regional organizations are largely
unequipped, structurally and financially, to effectively perform a wide variety of peace operations.
(Regional organizations in Europe currently play a larger part in conflictive and other problem
situations than regional organizations elsewhere.) NGOs have tended to concentrate on prevention
activities, refugee resettlement, and post-conflict development. Private firms have been used to
supplement U.S. and U.N. personnel in a few recent operations.
Most analysts would conclude that containing conflict at the lowest possible level is most
cost-effective, but the relative costs and effectiveness of using these different
organizations appear
still unclear. A wide variety of circumstances can influence whether an organization is appropriate
to use and able to prevent, contain or settle a conflict. No one organization or type of organization
is seen as capable of providing, by itself, the necessary coverage in all situations. There are
implications for U.S. interests, for the budget, for U.S. diplomacy, and for the U.S. military in the
use and mix of each of these types of organization.
