Stimson Logo

Future of Peace Operations Program

PEACE OPERATIONS FACTSHEET SERIES    
February 2002  		Download Printable PDF Version

U.S. FUNDING FOR PEACE OPERATIONS:
A LOOK AT THE FY03 BUDGET REQUEST & SELECTED STATE DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS

With release this month of the Bush Administration's budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2003 (FY03), the Administration presented its foreign affairs funding priorities for the year. This factsheet considers areas of funding administered by the State Department that affect U.S. support of international peace operations generally, with a focus on contributions to the United Nations. Overall, the Bush Administration proposes less funding for U.N. peacekeeping, constant budgets for the U.N. and international organizations, and a lower level of support for the voluntary peacekeeping account. Key policy issues remain in play, including the cap on U.S. assessments for U.N. peacekeeping, funding for U.N. peacekeeping reforms, and payment of arrears.

Key Funding Areas

Related Policy Areas

  • Administration budget presumes reductions in current U.N. peacekeeping operations, no new operations during 2002-2003, and no additional costs for U.N. peacekeeping reforms
  • Administration urges speedy action on repeal of 25 percent "cap" on U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping
  • Administration requests support for third payment of U.N. arrears to United Nations and no new conditions
  • Administration supports inclusion of "lethal training" for the African peacekeeping training program

1. U.S. FUNDING FOR U.N. PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS: $725 MILLION

FY03 Budget Request. The Administration requests $725 million for the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, which funds U.S. assessments for U.N.-run peacekeeping operations. [ See attached chart] This funding is provided through the State Department and administered by the Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO). In Congress, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittees appropriate the budget. The FY03 budget funds assessments for U.N. peacekeeping operations between October 2002 and September 2003. The FY02 budget is $844 million.

It is difficult to estimate the size and scale of U.N. peacekeeping operations nearly a year in advance, and specifically to predict costs associated with U.N. Security Council decisions for operations between October 2002 and September 2003. Nevertheless, the Administration's request is notable for its optimistic assumptions about the scale of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The proposed FY03 budget assumes that nearly all of the current 15 U.N. peacekeeping operations are reduced in funding from their FY02 levels - and that no new operations are launched. In comparison to the FY02 budget, the funding levels for the largest operations stand out:

  • Bosnia-Herzegovina. Assumes U.N. missions in Bosnia (UNMIBH, UNMOP) conclude by end of 2002, with no costs incurred during FY03;
  • Kosovo. Assumes costs of U.N. mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) are reduced by one-fifth;
  • Sierra Leone. Assumes costs of U.N. mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) are reduced by roughly half;
  • East Timor. Assumes costs of U.N. mission in East Timor (UNTAET) are reduced by over one-half;
  • Lebanon. Assumes costs of U.N. mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL) increase by one-third;
  • Ethiopia/Eritrea. Assumes costs of U.N. mission in Ethiopia/Eritrea (UNMEE) decrease slightly; and
  • Congo. Assumes costs of U.N. operation in the Congo (MONUC) grow dramatically. 1

Even with the anticipated end of the U.N. mandate for operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNMIBH, UNMOP) and the likely reductions in force for East Timor and Sierra Leone during 2002, the Administration's FY03 budget assumptions are constrictive, and make no allowances for unanticipated costs. A wider U.N. role in Afghanistan is plausible, for example, as is the possibility of several current operations continuing at or above their current FY02 levels. Finally, this budget fails to provide any room for funding that enables implementation of additional reforms which are likely to be adopted by the United Nations this year and which are funded by assessments for peace operations.2

If U.S. funding is not available to meet U.N. assessments, then the Administration faces the awkward choice of asking Congress for supplemental funding, using the United States seat on the Security Council to oppose on-going or new U.N. peacekeeping operations, or deferring payments to the United Nations and accruing additional arrears for operations supported by the United States.

U.S. Peacekeeping Funding "Cap." U.N. peacekeeping operations3 are funded by assessed contributions from Member States. The United States is assessed at a rate of roughly 27 percent for the U.N. peacekeeping budget, but pays no more than 25 percent due to a self-imposed cap.4 President Clinton signed this limitation, legislated by the Foreign Relations Act of 1994-1995. As a result, the United States has recalculated its peacekeeping bills from the United Nations and withheld payments beyond 25 percent since its implementation on October 1, 1996. Until this cap is lifted, the United States will continue to accrue new arrears for operations it supports. During 2002, the Administration estimates the U.S. accrued an additional $78 million to the United Nations, which could double by the end of 2003. The State Department opposes the cap, and continues to urge Congress to lift it.5

Administration Views. In his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 5, 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell urged swift action on the FY 2002/2003 State Department Authorization bill and "that it lift the cap on U.N. Peacekeeping dues." On peacekeeping funding, he urged that the Committee to:

"Continue to try to meet our obligations to international peacekeeping activities. The budget request includes $726 million to pay our projected United Nations peacekeeping assessments - all the more important as we seek to avoid increasing even further our U.N. arrearages. U.N. peacekeeping activities allow us to leverage our political, military, and financial assets through the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the participation of other countries in providing funds and peacekeepers for conflicts worldwide. As we have seen in Afghanistan, it is often best to use American GIs for the heavy lifting of combat and leave the peacekeeping to others."

2. U.S. FUNDING FOR THE U.N. REGULAR BUDGET: $279 MILLION

FY03 Budget Request. For FY03, the Administration requests $891 million for the overall account for U.S. participation in international organizations. Of this amount, $618 million funds the United Nations regular budget ($279 million) and its affiliated agencies.6 Funding for the United Nations and other international organizations is provided through the State Department's Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account, administered by the International Organizations Bureau. In Congress, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittees appropriate the budget. The FY03 request provides for the U.N. budget running from January 2002 through December 2002. The United States is assessed at a rate of 22 percent for the U.N. regular budget. The U.S. usually pays these annual dues in full - but late - often nine months to a year after the budget is assessed to nations.

The U.N. regular budget, provided by assessments from Member States, also has an impact on the conduct of U.N. peacekeeping. First, the administrative capabilities and personnel who run the United Nations, including the U.N. Secretariat, are funded through the regular budget. The U.N. regular budget also funds about ten percent of the staff that work on peacekeeping operations.7 Second, when countries withhold their funding or pay their assessments for the regular budget late, the United Nations has no additional sources of funding. To keep afloat, the U.N. often postpones reimbursing nations who contribute troops to U.N. peace operations. This, in turn, affects nations that provide peacekeepers and shortchanges funding available for peacekeeping operations.

Arrears. The third "tranche" of U.S. payments ($244 million) for arrears to the U.N. and its specialized agencies, agreed to under the "Helms-Biden" deal, is expected to be released this year. This payment, the last installment of the $926 million deal approved by Congress in late 1999 to pay much of the U.S. arrears to the U.N. and its affiliates, depends on meeting a series of conditions. New conditions, however, have been threatened by Members of Congress, approval of which could further slow payment of the $244 million. The Administration opposes any new conditions on release of the arrears payments.

Administration Views. In his February 5th testimony, Secretary of State Colin Powell urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to "continue to meet our obligations to international organizations - also important as we pursue the war on terrorism to its end. The budget request includes $891.4 million to fund U.S. assessments to 43 international organizations, active membership of which furthers U.S. economic, political, security, social, and cultural interests." Further, he urged Congress to "allow us to pay the third tranche of U.N. arrears with no additional strings attached."8

3.  U.S. FUNDING FOR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEACEKEEPING: $108 MILLION

FY03 Budget Request. The Administration requests $108 million for the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account which funds U.S. voluntary contributions for multinational peacekeeping activities (outside of U.N.- run operations). Funding is provided through the State Department's Military Assistance account (Title III) and administered primarily by the Political Military Bureau. In Congress, funding is appropriated by the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittees. The FY02 budget is $135 million.

The PKO account is described by State as "designed to advance international support for voluntary multinational efforts in conflict resolution, including support for international missions in response to emerging crises. These funds promote involvement of regional organizations and help leverage support for multinational efforts where no formal cost-sharing mechanisms exist." Funding is voluntary, that is, not provided to meet assessments. For FY03, the PKO account funds:

  • Africa Regional Peacekeeping Operations: $30 million. For FY03, the Administration request is $30 million. The FY02 budget is $41 million ($10 million less than requested for FY02.) According to the State Department, the program focuses on helping African countries develop better peacekeeping capabilities, primarily:
    • Assist the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and other African countries committed to providing peacekeeping troops.
    • Assist the Joint Military Commission (JMC) to maintain peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), including disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of combatants; and
    • Efforts by the Organization of African Unity (OAU)9 to support military observers in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
  • Successor to African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) Program: $10 million. For FY03, the Administration request is $10 million. Funding in FY02 for ACRI is $15 million (versus the request of $20 million). According to the State Department, the program is to "initiate a comprehensive U.S. crisis response training program in Africa. Building on the achievements of ACRI, this successor program will enhance African peacekeeping and humanitarian relief capacity although at a reduced level of funding." The Administration states that this program will increase the number of countries that receive common training and equipment for peacekeeping operations, and will also "provide the basis for lethal peace enforcement training." Funding will also include an "annual sustainment event" that "exercises recipient countries' peacekeeping skills." Potential recipients in FY03 include Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania and Botswana.
  • Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE): $47 million. For FY03, the Administration request is $47 million. This funding supports peacekeeping activities in the Balkans and OSCE preventive diplomacy missions elsewhere in Europe and countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The budget for FY02 is $54.6 million.
  • Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai: $16.4 million. For FY03, the Administration request is $16.4 million. This funding continues support for this non-U.N. peace operation that grew out of the 1978 Camp David Accords.10 The budget for FY02 is $16.4 million.
  • U.S. Civilian Police for East Timor: $5 million. For FY03, the Administration request is $5 million. This funding supports for U.S. civilian police (CIVPOL) participation in the U.N.-run peacekeeping operation in East Timor, UNTAET. The budget for FY02 is $8 million.

Additional Areas of Funding. Additional U.S. funding and programs administered by the State Department affect participation and conduct of peacekeeping operations, but it is beyond the scope of this factsheet to analyze the full range of foreign assistance programs, including the International Military Education and Training (IMET)11 and Foreign Military Financing (FMF)12 programs, as well as the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) Bureau and its civilian police (CIVPOL) and justice programs.

Of note within FMF programs, however, is the Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capabilities (EIPC) program, which is designed to directly support training for other nations' participation in peace operations. The FY03 request is $4 million. According to the State Department, this program "provides assistance to key countries to improve their peacekeeping capabilities, creating a bigger pool of potential peacekeepers and reducing dependence on US forces."

U.S. Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request

150 International Affairs
Selected Programs from 150 Budget
(in millions) FY01 Actual FY02 Estimate FY03 Request Increase / (Decrease) from FY02
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) 844 844 726 (118)
  Golan Heights (UNDOF) 8 10 8 (2)
  Lebanon (UNIFIL) 60 25 33 8
  Iraq/Kuwait (UNIKOM) 4.8 5.3 4.4 (1)
  Western Sahara (MINURSO) 11.5 13.4 11.7 (2)
  Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNMIBH) 48 29 0 (29)
  Kosovo (UNMIK) 144 122 96 (26)
  Cyprus (UNFICYP) 5.6 6.7 5.2 (2)
  Georgia (UNOMIG) 6.3 8.2 6.5 (2)
  War Crimes Tribunal - Yugoslavia 12 17 14 (3)
  War Crimes Tribunal - Rwanda 11 16 12 (4)
  Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) 96 318 145 (173)
  East Timor (UNTAET) 151 130 58 (72)
  Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) 74 83 273 190
  Ethiopia/Eritrea (UNMEE) 71 57 55 (2)
Contributions for International Organizations (CIO) 869 850 891 41
  United Nations & Affiliated Agencies 641 610 618 8
Foreign Operations Appropriations
Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) 127 135 108 (27)
  Africa Regional 31 41 30 (11)
  African Crisis Response Initiative 15 15 10 (5)
  Macedonia 4 - 0 -
  Multinational Force and Observers 16.0 16.4 16.4 0
  Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 48 55 47 (8)
  Ukraine KFOR 1.2 - - -
  Bulgaria / SEEBRIG 2.5 - - -
  East Timor (UNTAET) 8.5 8 5 (3)
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) 3,568 3,650 4,107 457
  Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capabilities (EIPC) 6 4 4 0

  1. Since the FY02 appropriation reportedly underfunds the requirements for MONUC by more than half, the increase in the FY03 request is not as large as a direct comparison would suggest.
  2. Funding for improvements to equipment for the U.N. strategic reserve in Brindisi, Italy will be decided this year, a proposal stemming from the Brahimi Report. Cost estimates suggest that roughly $40-60 million will be needed in 2002-2003 as the U.S. contribution. The current FY02 budget has no wiggle room for this funding, nor does the FY03 budget proposal.
  3. U.N. peacekeeping operations are those authorized, run, and paid for by the United Nations. These missions are separate from operations authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution but run by an international organization or lead nation, such as the current NATO-led force in Kosovo or the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
  4. In late 2000, the United Nations adopted a new scale for the assessment rates, and the U.S. assessment rate for peacekeeping was reduced to approximately 28 percent, which will fall to closer to 26 percent by 2004. Prior to the negotiation of new rates in late 2000, the United Nations assessed the U.S. at a rate of about 30.3 percent for peacekeeping operations.
  5. Legislation repealing the cap is stalled.
  6. Affiliated agencies include the U.N. specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization, and the war crimes tribunals.
  7. The majority of U.N. staff in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is funded through the peacekeeping budget, not the U.N. regular budget.
  8. Congress is considering requiring the U.S. to regain a seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
  9. The OAU has been renamed the "African Union."
  10. The U.S. element provides a range of support, including logistical assistance and peacekeepers. The Army provides military observers, as well as logistical, aviation, medical and mine support.
  11. The FY03 request for IMET is $80 million. Includes funding for Africa, $1 million to "boost programs in Rwanda, Togo, and Zambia, among others. It will also support a new multilateral program request for the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)."
  12. FY03 request for FMF is $4.1 billion (of which $3.6 billion is for the Near East), which includes funding for:
    • Africa, "$4.5 million for African regional stability, which includes funding for Botswana, a stable country which plays a role in advancing US interests in Southern Africa, and Kenya, where US interest in Sudan are advanced; $6 million to continue engagement with the Nigerian military on reform, modernization and democratization; and $6 million to continue engagement with the South African military."
    • East Asia and the Pacific, $2 million to continue support for the East Timor Defense Force.
    • Western Hemisphere, including $5 million for WHA Conflict Prevention Response "to increase the capabilities of key countries such as Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Uruguay that participate in worldwide peacekeeping operations and humanitarian and disaster assistance operations."