This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-294 
entitled 'U.N. Peacekeeping: Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal 
Years 1996-2001' which was released on February 11, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the 
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact 
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. 
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility 
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2002: 

U.N. Peacekeeping: 

Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years 1996-2001: 

GAO-02-294: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

U.S. Direct Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: 

U.S. Indirect Contributions Supported U.N. Peacekeeping: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Other U.S. Contributions During Peacekeeping Operations: 

Appendix III: U.S. Indirect Contributions: 

Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Tables: 

Table 1: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Operations by 
Agency, Fiscal Years 1996-2001 (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in 
thousands): 

Table 2: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping 
Operations by Mission, Fiscal Years 1996-2001: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Locations of 33 U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years 
1996-2001: 

Figure 2: Total U.N. Peacekeeping Costs, Peacekeeping Fiscal Years 
1995-2002 (Constant 2001 dollars in billions): 

Figure 3: U.S. Military Operations Providing Indirect Contributions to 
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years 1996-2001: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization: 

U.N. United Nations: 

USAID: United States Agency for International Development: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 11, 2002: 

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde: 
Chairman, Committee on International Relations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett: 
House of Representatives: 

The United Nations Security Council authorizes peacekeeping operations 
as a means to further international peace and security. From fiscal 
years 1996 through 2001, the Security Council authorized or maintained 
33 peacekeeping operations in 28 countries. Fifteen operations were 
ongoing as of January 2002. Although U.N. member countries are 
directly assessed for the cost of conducting these operations, some 
countries, including the United States, implement programs or 
activities that provide indirect support to peacekeeping operations. 

This report responds to your request that we determine both the U.S. 
direct and indirect contributions related to U.N. peacekeeping from 
fiscal years 1996 through 2001. For this report, contributions include 
U.S. government expenditures or obligations if data on expenditures 
are unavailable.[Footnote 1] (Appendix I details our scope and 
methodology.) We also provide information on activities that we do not 
include as direct or indirect contributions but that the United States 
has undertaken to assist countries in which the United Nations is 
conducting peacekeeping operations (see appendix II for details on 
these activities). 

To answer your request, we collected and analyzed cost information on 
U.S. assistance programs and military operations provided by the State 
Department, the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID), and the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and Treasury. We used State and DOD 
definitions and reports to estimate the cost of U.S. direct 
contributions. 

We determined which U.S. program costs to include as indirect 
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations by comparing the U.S. 
program objectives, locations, and time frames with the mandates of 
each U.N. peacekeeping operation. We used this information to 
determine whether the U.S. activity provided indirect support to the 
U.N. operation. We also collected information from and discussed our 
analytical approach with relevant U.S. and U.N. officials, since the 
U.S. government does not systematically collect data on indirect 
contributions. 

Results in Brief: 

The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to 
support U.N. peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001. 
[Footnote 2] Direct contributions are U.S. programs and actions that 
directly support specific U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) 
about $3.2 billion the Department of State expended for U.N. current 
and past due peacekeeping assessments and (2) nearly $250 million that 
State and DOD voluntarily spent to support U.S. civilian police, 
military units, and military observers to serve as an official part of 
a U.N. peacekeeping operation. As of September 30, 2001, the United 
States was providing 733 civilian police, soldiers, and military 
observers to U.N. peacekeeping operations. 

We estimate that U.S. indirect contributions that benefited U.N. 
peacekeeping were about $24.2 billion, from fiscal years 1996 through 
2001. Although there is no common definition within the U.S. 
government on what constitutes indirect contributions, we defined 
indirect contributions as U.S. programs and activities that (1) are 
located in the same area as an ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operation, 
(2) have objectives that help the peacekeeping operation achieve its 
mandated objectives, and (3) are not an official part of the U.N. 
operation. The largest indirect contribution (about $21.8 billion) 
stemmed from U.S. military operations and services that helped provide 
a secure environment for U.N. operations.[Footnote 3] However, the 
type and extent of indirect contribution varied, depending on whether 
the U.N. operation was traditional (limited objectives), 
multidimensional (several objectives), or involved nation-building 
(broad and extensive objectives). For example, two U.N. operations in 
Kosovo and East Timor involved nation-building, and they had extensive 
objectives, such as creating government agencies and rebuilding the 
economy. Estimated U.S. indirect contributions to these operations 
amounted to over $5 billion and included military operations to help 
provide a secure environment and programs to provide food and shelter 
for refugees and train police and court officials. 

This report contains no recommendations. We received written comments 
from State, DOD, and USAID. State and DOD disagreed with our inclusion 
of indirect contributions, commenting that U.S. operations are 
undertaken in the U.S. interest and there should not be an implied 
connection between U.S. operations and U.N. peacekeeping efforts. 
State also said our draft report implied that the United Nations 
should reimburse the United States for indirect contributions. We have 
revised this report to clarify any impression that the United Nations 
should reimburse the United States for its indirect contributions. 
However, we disagree with State's and DOD's position that indirect 
contributions should be excluded from our analysis. Excluding these 
contributions presents an incomplete picture of the important 
contribution that the United States has made over the years that help 
U.N. peacekeeping efforts achieve their objectives. In contrast to 
State and DOD, USAID said it appreciated our efforts to quantify the 
value of U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, adding that its own 
activities helped make U.N. peacekeeping efforts more effective. 

Background: 

U.N. peacekeeping operations are actions taken as a result of mandates 
established by U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to further 
international peace and security. The mandated objectives of these 
operations range from observing and monitoring the border area of the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to providing security and 
establishing an effective government and economy in East Timor. 
Personnel assigned to these operations work directly under the control 
of the United Nations and include soldiers, military observers, 
civilian police, and U.N. civilian staff. Between fiscal years 1996 
and 2001, the United Nations conducted 33 peacekeeping operations in 
28 countries (see fig. 1 for the locations of these operations). As of 
January 2002, 15 of these peacekeeping operations were still ongoing 
in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. These operations deploy 
over 47,000 military personnel, civilian police, and observers. 

Figure 1: Locations of 33 U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years 
1996-2001: 

[Refer to PDF for image: world map] 

Locations of 33 U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: 

Democratic Republic of Congo: 

Angola (2): 
Balkans (7): 
Central African Republic: 
Cyprus: 
Democratic Republic of Congo: 
East Timor (2): 
Ethiopia/Eritrea: 
Georgia: 
Guatemala: 
Haiti (4): 
India/Pakistan: 
Iraq/Kuwait: 
Liberia: 
Middle East (4): 
Rwanda: 
Sierra Leone (2): 
Tajikistan: 
Western Sahara: 

Note: Numbers in brackets denote multiple missions. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.N. data. 

[End of figure] 

The United Nations assesses member states a percentage share of the 
total cost of peacekeeping operations. The U.S. assessed share has 
historically been over 30 percent of total peacekeeping costs, but in 
November 1994 the Congress limited the amount the United States could 
pay to 25 percent, starting in fiscal year 1996.[Footnote 4] The 
United Nations continued to bill the United States at the higher 
assessment rate, leading to U.S. arrears. But in 2000, U.N. member 
states agreed to change the assessment formula and drop the U.S. share 
of the peacekeeping budget over a 3-year period to 27 percent. 

The annual assessed cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations declined from 
more than $3 billion in 1995 to less than $1 billion in 1999, as the 
United Nations reduced the number, size, and cost of its operations. 
During this period, the United Nations ended or reduced its operations 
in Bosnia, the Central African Republic, Croatia, Haiti, Liberia, 
Rwanda, and Tajikistan. The Security Council was reluctant to assume 
new operations or expand existing ones because of member state 
concerns about the failure of U.N. operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and 
Rwanda.[Footnote 5] 

Since 1999, however, the United Nations has begun or expanded 
peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, East Timor, the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, and Ethiopia-Eritrea. Because 
some of these new or expanded operations had objectives to restore 
peace and security and build effective police forces and justice 
systems in the countries, they needed the broad international approval 
that the United Nations could provide. As a result, reported 
peacekeeping costs for the U.N. peacekeeping budget year ending June 
30, 2001, increased to about $2.6 billion.[Footnote 6] Further, State 
Department and U.N. officials project that expenditures associated 
with peacekeeping operations for the U.N. peacekeeping budget year 
ending June 30, 2002, will be more than $3 billion. Figure 2 depicts 
the expenditures associated with U.N. peacekeeping operations from 
1995 through 2002. The cumulative cost of peacekeeping for these 
operations during this period was about $16.3 billion (constant 2001 
dollars). 

Figure 2: Total U.N. Peacekeeping Costs, Peacekeeping Fiscal Years 
1995-2002 (Constant 2001 dollars in billions): 

Year: 1995; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $3.8 billion. 

Year: 1996; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $1.8 billion. 

Year: 1997; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $1.4 billion. 

Year: 1998; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $1.0 billion. 

Year: 1999; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $0.9 billion. 

Year: 2000; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $1.8 billion. 

Year: 2001; 
Peacekeeping Costs: $2.5 billion. 

Year: 2002 (est.): 
Peacekeeping Costs: $3.0 billion. 

Note: These dollars are presented in constant 2001 dollars. Each bar 
provides costs for the U.N. peacekeeping budget year-—July 1 to June 
30 of the following year. 

Source: GAO analysis based on State and U.N. data. 

[End of figure] 

U.S. Direct Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: 

The Departments of State and Defense provided the United Nations about 
$3.45 billion in direct contributions to conduct peacekeeping 
operations between U.S. fiscal years 1996 and 2001. This amount 
includes contributions for (1) over $3.2 billion current and past due 
U.N. peacekeeping assessments and (2) the estimated cost for U.S. 
civilian police, troops, and military observers to serve directly with 
U.N. peacekeeping operations minus any U.N. reimbursement to the 
United States for the costs associated with these personnel. 

From fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the United States paid U.N. 
peacekeeping assessments of about $2.35 billion. The assessments 
supported 33 peacekeeping operations conducted during this period. In 
addition to these payments, the United States paid the United Nations 
almost $850 million for past due peacekeeping assessments. Congress 
passed legislation in 1999[Footnote 7] that appropriated funds for 
much of the past due payments, under the condition that the United 
Nations adopt certain reform measures, including a reduction of the 
U.S. peacekeeping assessment rate. As discussed earlier, the United 
Nations reduced the U.S. assessment rate for peacekeeping to about 27 
percent; and in 2001, Congress passed legislation allowing payment of 
arrears as a result of this reduction in the rate.[Footnote 8] 

The direct contributions also reflect nearly $250 million in U.S. 
voluntary contributions to provide and support U.S. civilian police 
and military personnel or civilians to serve under the authority of a 
U.N. peacekeeping force, such as the police officers deployed to 
Bosnia and Kosovo and the military personnel assigned to U.N. 
operations in Haiti and Macedonia. These personnel typically serve as 
military observers, combat soldiers, or police officers or trainers. 
[Footnote 9] 

U.S. Indirect Contributions Supported U.N. Peacekeeping: 

We estimate the cumulative U.S. government indirect contributions that 
help support U.N. peacekeeping operations, between fiscal years 1996 
and 2001, at about $24.2 billion. We define indirect contributions as 
U.S. programs and activities that are located in the same area as an 
ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operation, have objectives that help the 
peacekeeping operation achieve its mandated objectives, and are not an 
official part of the U.N. operation. About 90 percent of the indirect 
contributions, or an estimated $21.8 billion, stemmed from U.S. 
military operations and services that helped provide secure 
environments for the U.N. operations to function. (See appendix III 
for information on indirect contributions by each U.S. agency and a 
map of the locations of the military operations.) However, the extent 
and type of indirect contribution depended on whether the U.N. 
operation was (1) traditional—had limited objectives, generally to 
monitor or supervise cease-fire and peace agreements; (2) 
multidimensional—had multiple objectives, such as rebuilding the 
civilian police force and aiding refugees; or (3) nation-building—had 
broad objectives and executive authority to construct a country's 
political, legal, and economic institutions and provide governmental 
functions for an interim period. Each successive category entails more 
objectives and greater effort for the U.N. peacekeeping operations, 
and we identified correspondingly greater and more costly U.S. 
indirect contributions for these operations. (Appendix IV provides 
more detailed information on all 33 U.N. peacekeeping operations 
conducted from fiscal years 1996 through 2001 and U.S. contributions 
to these operations.) 

Fourteen traditional peacekeeping operations were conducted during 
this period; indirect U.S. contributions to these operations cost an 
estimated $6.1 billion. The largest contribution assisted the U.N. 
Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission, which has mandates to monitor the 
demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait and to deter Iraqi 
violations of the Kuwait border. U.S.-led military operations in the 
Persian Gulf area, including ground patrols and naval operations-—
which cost DOD an estimated $5.8 billion from fiscal years 1996 
through 2001-—deter Iraqi aggression. These activities support the 
U.N. operation's objective to prevent violations of the Iraq-Kuwait 
border. Other U.S. indirect contributions, totaling an estimated $300 
million, helped support several U.N. operations by providing emergency 
food aid, military education and training, and military equipment. 

Seventeen multidimensional U.N. operations were conducted between 
fiscal years 1996 through 2001; U.S. indirect contributions to these 
operations were an estimated $13 billion. The largest U.S. indirect 
contribution to these U.N. operations was for U.S. military operations 
in Bosnia. For example, the cost to DOD for providing thousands of 
U.S. military personnel and other aid to North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO)-led or coalition-led operations in Bosnia was an 
estimated $11.2 billion, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001. These 
coalition forces provided the secure environment necessary for the 
U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina to help restructure the law 
enforcement and judicial system of Bosnia. U.S. indirect contributions 
to support Bosnia peacekeeping also included about $480 million for 
police and judicial training and humanitarian aid. Other U.S. food aid 
and assistance programs indirectly helped six multidimensional U.N. 
operations carry out mandates to help provide humanitarian assistance. 
For example, several U.S. agency programs, including Food for Peace, 
provided Rwanda $140 million for emergency food rations and other 
humanitarian aid, which helped the U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda 
aid war victims. 

U.S. indirect contributions costing an estimated $5 billion helped the 
two nation-building operations-—the U.N. Interim Administration 
Mission in Kosovo and the U.N. Transitional Administration in East 
Timor. These operations have broad mandates to create or rebuild the 
countries' government agencies and financial institutions, and U.S. 
indirect contributions helped the operations in a variety of ways. The 
largest U.S. indirect contribution was used for U.S. military 
operations, costing about $4.1 billion. In Kosovo, for example, U.S. 
participation in the NATO-led force provided public security and 
allowed the U.N. mission in Kosovo to function and maintain civil law 
and order. U.S. bilateral development and assistance programs, 
estimated at $900 million, provided additional indirect support to the 
U.N. operations.[Footnote 10] For example, State and USAID programs 
helped create civil and social services in East Timor and provided 
economic reconstruction assistance in Kosovo. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

State, DOD, and USAID provided written comments on a draft of this 
report that are reprinted in appendixes V, VI, and VII. State and DOD 
disagreed with the inclusion of indirect contributions in our 
analysis, while USAID supported it.
		
Specifically, State and DOD said it was misleading to characterize 
U.S. military operations as providing support for U.N. peacekeeping 
activities because it implied a connection between U.N. operations and 
U.S. programs that does not exist. According to these agencies, U.S. 
activities are determined solely on the basis of U.S. interests, 
regardless of any coincidental benefits that may accrue to U.N. 
peacekeepers; and these benefits should not be equated with providing 
support to the United Nations. 

State also expressed concern that our inclusion of indirect 
contributions implied that independent actions by the United States or 
other member nations, even if they provided benefit to the U.N. 
operations, might be used by the United States or other member 
countries as a rationale to offset assessed payments to the United 
Nations for peacekeeping. 

In contrast with State and DOD, USAID agreed with our findings, 
stating that it was fully supportive of a number of indirect 
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. USAID also cited its 
work to provide humanitarian and other assistance to help ensure the 
success of U.N. peacekeeping operations. 

We disagree with State's and DOD's position that indirect 
contributions should be excluded from our analysis. Excluding these 
contributions presents an incomplete picture of the important 
contribution that the United States has made over the years to ensure 
that U.N. peacekeeping efforts achieve their objectives. 

We agree with State and DOD that U.S. operations are undertaken to 
promote U.S. interests. DOD argued, however, that our report 
indirectly included or overstated certain DOD operations as supporting 
U.N. operations, without providing specific instances. But we believe 
that all the operations we included clearly helped specific U.N. 
peacekeeping operations. For example, DOD and State have concurred 
with several of our previous reports that characterized U.S. and NATO 
military forces as providing support for U.N. and other international 
organizations' peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 
Kosovo. In those reports, we noted that the stated objectives of U.S. 
and NATO military operations include providing a secure environment 
for U.N. civilian police and other U.N.-led operations.[Footnote 11] 
Nearly two-thirds, or $15.5 billion, of the total estimated costs that 
we identified as indirect contributions are attributable to U.S. 
military operations in support of the two NATO-led peace operations in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. 

We agree that our report should not be used for the purpose of 
offsetting U.N. assessments. We do not think indirect contributions 
should be construed as a contribution for which the United Nations 
should reimburse the United States and have revised this report to 
remove any characterization that indirect contributions are provided 
directly to U.N. operations. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its 
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 
7 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will send 
copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the 
Secretaries of State, Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury; 
the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrator for the 
U.S. Agency for International Development; the Secretary General of 
the United Nations and the Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping 
Operations; and other interested parties. We will also make copies 
available to others upon request. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
call me at (202) 512-8979. Key contributors to this report were Tet 
Miyabara, B. Patrick Hickey, Aim Baker, Norman Thorpe, and James M. 
Strus. 

Signed by: 

Joseph A. Christoff, Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We estimated direct contributions to peacekeeping operations by 
analyzing and compiling cost data from a wide range of U.S. and U.N. 
records, including the President's required annual reports to the 
Congress on U.S. assistance to U.N. peacekeeping operations for 
calendar years 1995 through 2000.[Footnote 12] We also reviewed cost 
data from the Departments of Defense (DOD), State, Agriculture, 
Commerce, Justice, and the Treasury; the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID); and the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping 
Operations. In general, the information on direct contributions used 
in this report was based on agency expenditures data included in U.S. 
budget documents. We discussed the data with officials at each agency. 
According to State and DOD officials and reports, direct contributions 
are U.S. programs and actions that provide direct support to specific 
U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) current and past due 
payments for U.N. peacekeeping assessments, and (2) the cost to State 
and DOD for providing and supporting civilian police, U.S. military 
units, individual troops, and military observers to serve as part of a 
U.N. peacekeeping operation. 

To estimate the cost[Footnote 13] of indirect contributions to U.N. 
peacekeeping operations, we analyzed and compiled information from 
several U.S. agencies about the cost and purpose of their programs in 
countries with U.N. peacekeeping operations. DOD provided its 
available data on incremental costs for overseas contingency 
operations.[Footnote 14] Officials from State, USAID, Justice, and 
Agriculture provided data on their security, development, and 
assistance programs in countries hosting U.N. peacekeeping operations. 
[Footnote 15] Officials from Commerce and Treasury provided data on 
their technical assistance programs in the same countries. Officials 
from all of these agencies provided actual expenditures for programs 
where they had data and obligations of funds for programs where they 
did not have actual expenditures data. We limited the scope of this 
review to fiscal years 1996 through 2001, after determining that 
useful program data prior to this period was not generally available. 
Most of the cost data for fiscal year 2001 were based on agency 
officials' estimates or obligations. We did not independently 
determine the reliability of available data on costs associated with 
U.N. peacekeeping operations. 

For purposes of our analysis, we defined indirect contributions as 
U.S. programs and activities that are located in the same area as an 
ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operation and have objectives that help the 
peacekeeping operation achieve its mandated objectives, but which are 
not an official part of the U.N. operation. We used this definition 
because the U.S. government does not systematically define indirect 
contributions to peacekeeping and does not collect cost and other data 
on these indirect contributions, according to State and DOD officials. 
To determine the estimated cost of U.S. programs and activities 
included in our definition of indirect contributions, we (1) analyzed 
the mandates of each of the 33 peacekeeping operations, (2) identified 
colocated U.S. programs and activities with objectives that 
corresponded to the objectives of each mandate, and (3) estimated the 
costs associated with those programs during the periods each U.N. 
peacekeeping operation was present. If the United Nations terminated a 
peacekeeping operation prior to the end of a given fiscal year, we 
included only the costs associated with U.S. programs expended up to 
that point, if detailed U.S. program expenditure data allowed us to 
make that determination. If detailed data were not available, we 
generally included the full estimated fiscal year cost for the U.S. 
programs associated with U.N. peacekeeping operations terminated after 
5 months or more into that fiscal year. 

We discussed this definition of indirect contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations and our methodology for arriving at these 
costs with agency officials. Discussions with these officials and our 
analysis of prior GAO reports suggest that we define indirect 
contributions more broadly than some DOD officials but less broadly 
than some State and USAID officials. For example, DOD officials stated 
that the costs of U.S. operations not led by U.N. commanders are not 
part of the U.N.'s assessment of peacekeeping costs and should not be 
considered as contribution to U.N. operations. Therefore, DOD does not 
consider the costs of its contributions to the coalition-led 
peacekeeping forces deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo as contributions to 
the U.N. peacekeeping operations there. DOD officials stated that 
these forces were not deployed specifically or exclusively to support 
the colocated U.N. peacekeeping operations. We have stated in previous 
reports that these forces did provide the general security necessary 
for the colocated U.N. peacekeeping operations to carry out their 
mandates, however, so we included their estimated incremental costs as 
indirect contributions.[Footnote 16] 

In contrast to DOD officials, some State and USAID officials define 
indirect contributions more broadly than we did. For example, USAID 
officials and documents concluded that almost all of its bilateral 
humanitarian and development assistance in the African countries 
hosting U.N. peacekeeping operations could be considered indirect 
support for those operations. In some cases, we excluded those 
programs from our estimated cost of indirect contributions because the 
mandates of specific U.N. peacekeeping operations in Africa did not 
include humanitarian and development objectives. In other cases, we 
excluded the costs of regional programs and activities State and USAID 
officials described as indirectly contributing to U.N. peacekeeping 
operations because they could not isolate a portion of these regional 
costs to ascribe to a particular country hosting a peacekeeping 
operation. (Appendix II provides more detail on some of these other 
U.S. programs and activities). 

As discussed earlier, we analyzed the mandates for the 33 U.N. 
peacekeeping operations conducted between fiscal years 1996 and 2001. 
We compared the objectives, locations, and time frames of each U.N. 
peacekeeping operation to the U.S. military and civilian assistance 
programs located in the same countries that were not under the direct 
control of the U.N. peacekeeping operation. In order to systematically 
determine which U.S. programs and activities to include as indirect 
contributions to each U.N. peacekeeping operation, we placed each U.N. 
peacekeeping operation into one of three categories, depending upon 
the nature and the expansiveness of its mandates: traditional,
multidimensional, and nation-building. 

We classified 14 of the operations as having traditional and 
relatively restricted peacekeeping mandates. These operations 
generally monitor or supervise cease-fire and other peace agreements 
between formerly warring parties. Their tasks can include monitoring 
of border demarcation, exchange of prisoners, and demobilization 
efforts. Because the narrowness of their mandates tend to preclude a 
role for the operation in humanitarian or other assistance tasks, most 
traditional peacekeeping operations do not have identifiable indirect 
costs associated with them. 

We classified 17 operations as having multidimensional mandates. These 
operations tend to go beyond traditional peace monitoring tasks by 
attempting to restore or create conditions more conducive to a lasting 
peace. Multidimensional operations include one or more of the 
following tasks in their mandates: 

* Monitor, supervise, train, or reconstruct police forces and 
otherwise support efforts to restore rule of law; 

* Monitor, assist, or institute efforts to improve human rights; 

* Support, facilitate, coordinate, or safeguard humanitarian relief 
operations or deliveries; 

* Monitor, support, coordinate, or safeguard assistance provided to 
help refugees or internally displaced persons return home and 
reintegrate into the society of the affected country or region; and; 

* Conduct, support, or coordinate elections and other democracy-
building efforts. 

For each multidimensional operation, we included the reported costs of 
relevant U.S. bilateral assistance programs in the indirect cost total 
for the operation. We determined these on a case-by-case basis, 
depending upon the scope of the mandate. For example, we included U.S. 
bilateral elections support programs and democracy-building assistance 
for countries where the colocated U.N. peacekeeping force included 
election supervision or support among its objectives. Furthermore, we 
excluded the reported costs of other types of U.S. bilateral 
assistance from the indirect cost total where we could not find an 
associated objective in the mandates of the colocated U.N. 
peacekeeping operations. For example, the U.N. Mission in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina is concerned primarily with efforts to monitor, supervise, 
train, or reconstruct police forces and otherwise support efforts to 
restore rule of law. We therefore excluded the substantial costs 
associated with U.S. humanitarian, democracy-building, and long-term 
economic development assistance provided to Bosnia through the 
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe and other 
international organizations between fiscal years 1996 and 2001. 

We classified two recent U.N. peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and in 
East Timor as having nation-building mandates. In addition to some of 
the multidimensional tasks previously listed, the U.N. Security 
Council granted these operations the tasks and the executive authority 
relating to the construction or reconstruction of political, legal, 
and economic institutions. They are also responsible for the interim 
administration of these countries while helping them develop the 
capacity for self-government. In these cases, we included the costs of 
all U.S. bilateral security and assistance programs, development aid, 
and concurrent DOD operations conducted within Kosovo and East Timor 
during the time span of the two operations. We excluded only regional 
assistance programs with costs that could not be attributable 
specifically to those two states. 

We conducted our review from July through December 2001 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Other U.S. Contributions During Peacekeeping Operations: 

The United States has also conducted other security and assistance 
programs and activities that reinforce the objectives of particular 
U.N. peacekeeping operations but whose objectives cannot be related to 
the mandates of the peacekeeping operation. For this reason, we have 
excluded these programs and activities from our tabulation of the 
costs associated with indirect support for U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. 

These other contributions include the following categories: 

* U.S. bilateral humanitarian and development assistance to countries 
hosting U.N. peacekeeping operations that do not have mandates to 
conduct humanitarian or development activities. For example, the 
United Nations has kept a small monitoring operation in Israel, 
Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria since 1948. Given the narrow focus 
of its mandate, we excluded as indirect contributions, the billions of 
dollars in assistance programs the United States provides to some of 
these countries each year. 

* U.S. regional assistance activities and operations whose costs 
cannot be linked to a particular country hosting a peacekeeping 
operation because these costs are reported only on a regional basis. 
For example, the State Department provided millions of dollars in 
humanitarian assistance through its African Great Lakes initiative in 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to aid refugees and displaced persons from 
Burundi, Rwanda, and the Congo housed in camps in Tanzania and the 
Congo. State officials could not ascertain how much assistance went 
specifically to support Rwanda refugees when the U.N. peacekeeping 
operation was operating in Rwanda, so we did not apportion part of 
this program as an indirect contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping 
operation in Rwanda. 

* U.S. security assistance to train and equip other nations' military 
forces, allowing them to participate more effectively in peacekeeping 
operations in general. For example, State and DOD have provided 
significant amounts of assistance through their contributions to 
NATO's Partnership for Peace Program. This assistance trains military 
units in Ukraine, Central Asia, and the Baltic States to participate 
in NATO-led or U.N.-led peacekeeping operations, but this assistance 
could not be ascribed as contributions to specific U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. Moreover, DOD and State have provided peacekeeping 
training through the African Crisis Response Initiative and the 
African Regional Peacekeeping Program to at least 14 African states 
and two regional organizations. State officials could not break out 
the portions of these programs that specifically assisted troops 
assigned to ongoing U.N. peacekeeping operations. We therefore did not 
attribute a portion of these costs as indirect support for particular 
U.N. peacekeeping operations. 

* U.S. military operations not addressed by a U.N. Security Council 
resolution, or conducted in support of other U.N. peace activities in 
which no U.N. peacekeeping operations are present. This category 
includes a variety of U.S. military contingency operations with costs 
that are excluded from our definition of indirect contributions. For 
example, the United States and NATO conducted intensive air strikes 
against Serbia to bring about a peace agreement in Kosovo in 1999, but 
they did so without a supporting resolution from the U.N. Security 
Council. In addition, the United States conducted military strikes 
against Iraq and maintains a military blockade of Iraq in the Persian 
Gulf in support of U.N.-sanctioned embargoes and weapons inspection 
requirements. Furthermore, U.S. military forces in the Republic of 
Korea simultaneously serve as part of the U.N. Command as well as part 
of the U.S. Forces Korea and the Republic of Korea-U.S. Combined 
Forces Command, but these forces are not contributing to an ongoing 
U.N. peacekeeping operation. Finally, the United States contributes 
troops to the Multinational Force and Observers, a peacekeeping force 
deployed in the Sinai peninsula following the signing of the Camp 
David Accords, after the United Nations failed to reach agreement on 
deploying a U.N. peacekeeping force. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: U.S. Indirect Contributions: 

Of the $24.2 billion in indirect U.S. contributions to peacekeeping 
operations, approximately 90 percent, or $21.8 billion, came from DOD; 
about 6 percent ($1.5 billion) from USAID; about 4 percent ($810 
million) from the Department of State; and less than 1 percent came 
from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury for 
technical assistance programs ($39 million). Over $21.6 billion of the 
DOD contribution was provided for military operations with objectives 
that helped colocated U.N. peacekeeping operations achieve their 
mandated objectives.[Footnote 17] The remainder was provided for 
humanitarian demining programs and for other equipment and services 
provided to U.N. peacekeepers or to regional security forces 
supporting specific U.N. peacekeeping operations. Figure 3 shows the 
locations of U.S. military operations that provided indirect 
assistance to U.N. peacekeeping operations.[Footnote 18] 

Figure 3: U.S. Military Operations Providing Indirect Contributions to 
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, Fiscal Years 1996-2001: 

[Refer to PDF for image: world map] 

Sierra Leone: 
* Focus Relief. 

Balkans: 
* Provide Promise; 
* Deny Flight; 
* Able Sentry; 
* Joint Endeavor; 
* Joint/Deliberate Forge; 
* Joint/Deliberate Guard; 
* Joint Guardian; 
* Sustain Hope. 

Haiti: 
* Uphold Democracy. 

East Timor: 
* Stabilize. 

Iraq/Kuwait: 
* Vigilant Sentinel/Southern Watch; 
* Intrinsic Action/Desert Spring. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: U.S. Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: 

The United Nations conducted 33 U.N. peacekeeping operations from 
fiscal years 1996 through 2001. Table 1 provides total direct and 
indirect contributions by each agency, and table 2 provides a breakout 
of the U.N. peace operations by category and provides information 
about the U.S. direct and indirect contributions to each operation. 

Table 1: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Operations by 
Agency, Fiscal Years 1996-2001 (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in 
thousands): 

Department or agency: State; 
Direct contribution: Assessed: $3,203,169[A]; 
Direct contribution: Voluntary: $248,382; 
Direct contribution: Total direct: $3,451,551; 
Indirect contributions: $809,417; 
Total: $4,260,969[C]. 

Department or agency: Defense; 
Direct contribution: Assessed: $0; 
Direct contribution: Voluntary: $1,205; 
Direct contribution: Total direct: $1,205; 
Indirect contributions: $21,786,332; 
Total: $21,787,536[C]. 

Department or agency: USAID; 
Direct contribution: Assessed: $0; 
Direct contribution: Voluntary: $0; 
Direct contribution: Total direct: $0; 
Indirect contributions: $1,526,697; 
Total: $1,526,697. 

Department or agency: Other[B]; 
Direct contribution: Assessed: $0; 
Direct contribution: Voluntary: $0; 
Direct contribution: Total direct: $0; 
Indirect contributions: $39,720; 
Total: $39,720. 

Department or agency: Total; 
Direct contribution: Assessed: $3,203,169; 
Direct contribution: Voluntary: $249,586[C]; 
Direct contribution: Total direct: $3,452,755[C]; 
Indirect contributions: $24,162,166; 
Total: $27,614,921[C]. 

[A] Includes the cost of repaying U.S. arrearages to the United 
Nations. 

[B] Includes contributions from the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, and Treasury. 

[C] Adjusted to account for rounding error. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: U.S. Direct and Indirect Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping 
Operations by Mission, Fiscal Years 1996-2001: 

Traditional peacekeeping operations: 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Truce Supervision Organization in 
Palestine (Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) (UNTSO); 
Duration: June 1948 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: Military 
observer cost-of-living allowances; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $37,990; 
Indirect: $82; 
Total: $38,072. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Military Observer Group in India and 
Pakistan (UNMOGIP); 
Duration: Jan. 1949 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): None; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $10,834; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $10,834. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Disengagement Observer Force (Syrian 
Golan Heights) (UNDOF); 
Duration: June 1974 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): None; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $47,753; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $47,753. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus 
(UNFICYP); 
Duration: Mar. 1964 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: 
Bicommunal humanitarian programs; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $35,034; 
Indirect: $46,935; 
Total: $81,969. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL); 
Duration: Mar. 1978 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): State: Support 
for Israel-Lebanon border monitoring group; DOD: Demining training; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $213,379; 
Indirect: $8,961; 
222,340. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission of Observers in Prevlaka 
(Croatia)[A] (UNMOP); 
Duration: Jan. 1996 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): None; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: [B]; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $0. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission 
(UNIKOM); 
Duration: Apr. 1991-; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: Military 
exercises and operations to deter Iraqi aggression; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $25,891; 
Indirect: $5,807,153; 
Total: $5,833,044. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG); 
Duration: Aug. 1993 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: Food 
aid; State: Military education and training; DOD: Demining training; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $31,028; 
Indirect: $91,085; 
Total: $122,113. 		
	
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea 
(UNMEE); 
Duration: July 2000 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: Border 
development program; State: Military education and training, demining; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $71,300; 
Indirect: $3,705; 
Total: $75,005. 
			
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Confidence Restoration Operation 
(Croatia) (UNCRO); 
Duration: Mar. 1995-Jan. 1996 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): None; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: [C]; 
Indirect: [C]; 
Total: $0. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Preventive Deployment Force 
(Macedonia) (UNPREDEP); 
Duration: Mar. 1995-Feb. 1999; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: Support 
for U.S. forces serving with U.N. peacekeeping operation; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $41,002; 
Indirect: $91,055; 
Total: $132,057. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Verification Mission in Guatemala 
(MINUGUA)[D]; 
Duration: Jan.-May 1997; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): None; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $1,073; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $1,073. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone 
(UNOMSIL); 
Duration: July 1998-Oct. 1999; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD and State: 
Equipment and services for African peacekeeping forces; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $4,258; 
Indirect: $21,457; 
Total: $25,715. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission of Observers in Tajikistan 
(UNMOT); 
Duration: Dec. 1994-May 2000; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): State: Refugee 
assistance; USAID: Food aid for refugees; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $14,828; 
Indirect: $33,433; 
Total: $48,261. 

Subtotal for traditional operations: 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $534,370; 
Indirect: $6,103,866; 
Total: $6,638,236. 

Multidimensional peacekeeping operations: 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission for the Referendum in 
Western Sahara[E] (Morocco) (MINURSO); 
Duration: Apr. 1991 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): None; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $25,429; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $25,429. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(UNMIBH); 
Duration: Dec. 1995 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: Troops for 
NATO-led coalition enforcing military provisions of the peace 
agreement; State: Police and judicial training, demining; 
Justice: Police and judicial training; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $323,516; 
Indirect: $11,680,585; 
Total: $12,004,101. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL); 
Duration: Oct. 1999 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD and State: 
Support and training for African peacekeeping forces; 
USAID: Food aid; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $278,698; 
Indirect: $221,692; 
Total: $500,390. 

U.N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
(MONUC); 
Duration: Dec. 1999 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: 
Emergency assistance and food aid; Agriculture: Food donations; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $117,262; 
Indirect: $129,071; 
Total: $246,333. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Protection Force (Bosnia, Croatia, 
Macedonia) (UNPROFOR); 
Duration: Feb. 1992-Jan. 1996; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: Aircraft 
maintain no-fly zone over Bosnia; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $78,932; 
Indirect: [F]; 
Total: $78,932. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Transitional Administration for E. 
Slavonia, Baranja, and W. Sirmium (Croatia) (UNTAES); 
Duration: Jan. 1996-Jan.1998; 
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Civilian Police Support Group 
(Croatia) (UNPSG); 
Duration: Jan.-Oct. 1998; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): State: Refugee 
assistance and police training; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $66,706; 
Indirect: $15,983; 
Total: $82,689. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL); 
Duration: Sep. 1993-Sep. 1997; 	
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: Food aid 
and disaster relief; DOD and State: Support for African peacekeeping 
forces. 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $12,259; 
Indirect: $276,657; 
Total: $288,916. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda 
(UNAMIR); 
Duration: Oct. 1993-Mar. 1997; 	
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: Food 
aid; DOD: Support for demining; State: Refugee assistance; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $15,507; 
Indirect: $140,838; 
Total: $156,345. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Angola Verification Mission III 
(UNAVEM III); 
Duration: Feb. 1995-Jun. 1997; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): USAID: Food 
aid, combatant retraining; 
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA); 
Duration: June 1997-Feb. 1999; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): State: Refugee 
assistance and demining; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $184,949; 
Indirect: $307,068; 
Total: $492,017. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission in the Central African 
Republic (MINURCA); 
Duration: Apr. 1998-Feb. 2000; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): State: Military 
education and training; USAID: Food aid; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $0; 
Indirect: $968; 
Total: $968. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission in Haiti (UNMIH); 
Duration: Sep. 1993-Feb. 1996; 
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH); 
Duration: July 1996-July 1997; 
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH); 
Duration: Aug.-Nov. 1997; 
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Civilian Police Mission in Haiti 
(MIPONUH); 
Duration: Dec.1997-Mar. 2000; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: Support 
for U.S. forces serving with U.N. peacekeepers; State and DOD: Support 
for the national police; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $75,488; 
Indirect: $216,490; 
Total: $291,978. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Mission in East Timor (UNAMET); 
Duration: June—Oct. 1999; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): DOD: support 
for international coalition forces; State: Support for civilian police 
monitors; USAID: transition assistance; 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $2,141; 
Indirect: $19,575; 
Total: $21,716. 

Subtotal for multidimensional operations: 
U.S. contributions (Constant fiscal year 2001 dollars in thousands): 
Direct: $1,180,887; 
Indirect: $13,008,927; 
Total: $14,189,814. 
		
Nation-Building peacekeeping operations: 
	
U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Interim Administration Mission in 
Kosovo (UNMIK); 
Duration: June 1999 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): U.S. Agencies: 
DOD: Troops for NATO-led coalition enforcing provisions of cease-fire 
and withdrawal agreements, public security, and assistance for local 
civilian protection units; State: Refugee and economic assistance; 
Agriculture: Food donations; USAID: Refugee and development 
assistance; Justice: Police and judicial training; Treasury/Commerce: 
Technical assistance; 
Direct: $446,175; 
Indirect: $4,833,670; 
Total: $5,279,845. 

U.N. peacekeeping operation: U.N. Transitional Administration in East 
Timor (UNTAET); 
Duration: Oct.1999 -; 
Indirect U.S. contributions by U.S. agencies (if any): U.S. Agencies: 
DOD: Humanitarian and civic assistance; State: Support for U.N. 
administration and law enforcement; USAID: Food aid, refugee 
assistance, and democracy building; Justice: Police and judicial 
training; 
Direct: $316,659; 
Indirect: $208,586; 
Total: $525,245. 

Subtotal for nation-building operations: 
Direct: $762,834; 
Indirect: $5,042,256; 
Total: $5,805,090. 

Total contributions for operations: 
Direct: $2,478,091; 
Indirect: $24,155,049; 
Total: $26,633,140. 

Assessments appropriated by the Congress for U.N. peacekeeping 
operations but not sent to the United Nations as of January 31, 2002: 
Direct: $126,620; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $126,620. 

U.N. arrearage payments: 
Direct: $847,830; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $847,830. 

Support for U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters: 
Direct: $215; 
Indirect: $0; 
Total: $215. 

U.S. Military Observer Group overhead: 
Direct: $0; 
Indirect: $7,105; 
Total: $7,105. 

Grand total[G]: 
Direct: $3,452,755; 
Indirect: $24,162,166; 
Total: $27,614,921. 

[A] This operation is located in an area of disputed ownership between 
Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). 

[B] Direct costs are included in UNMIBH. 

[C] Direct and indirect costs for UNCRO are combined with costs for 
UNTAES. 

[D] The U.N. mission was part of a larger non-U.N. regional peace 
operation with the same acronym. 

[E] Morocco, Mauritania, and a local independence group dispute the 
ownership of this territory. `Indirect costs are included in UNMIBH. 

[F] Totals are adjusted to account for rounding errors. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

February 1, 2002: 

Ms. Susan S. Westin: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 

Dear Ms. Westin: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "U.N. 
Peacekeeping: Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years 1996 - 2001," 
GAO-02-294, GAO Job Code 320067. 

The Department's comments are enclosed for incorporation, along with 
this letter, as an appendix to the GAO final report. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact 
Charles Casper, Office of Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Operations, 
Bureau of International Organization Affairs on (202) 736-7789. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Christopher B. Burnham: 
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

cc: GAO/IAT - Mr. Christoff: 
State/OIG - Mr. Berman: 
State/IO - Mr. Imbrie: 

[End of letter] 

Department Of State Comments On GAO Draft Report U.N. Peacekeeping: 
Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years 1996-2001" (GAO-023-294, 
Job Code 320067): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 
draft report. We have reviewed the report and have no comment on the 
calculations made. Our primary concern is with the GAO definition of 
"indirect contributions" to UN peacekeeping operations and the 
resultant use of the definition. 

On page 2, the GAO states "Although there is no common definition 
within the U.S. government as to what constitutes indirect 
contributions, we have defined indirect contributions as U.S. programs 
and activities that are located in the same area as an ongoing U.N.
peacekeeping operation, have objectives that help the peacekeeping 
operation achieve its mandated objectives, and are not an official 
part of the U.N. operation." Using this definition, the GAO found 
$21.8 billion (90 percent) in U.S. military operations and services of 
the $24.2 billion total estimated "U.S. indirect contributions."
Most of these U.S. military activities were for activities related to 
Iraq, Kosovo and Bosnia. 

Our concern is that the GAO definition results in misleadingly high 
figures for contributions by the U.S. military to UN peacekeeping 
operations. The term "indirect contributions" implies a connection 
between the UN operations and the U.S. programs and activities that 
does not exist. U.S. programs and activities are determined 
independently, solely on the basis of U.S. interests and policies. 
Just as we would resist being billed for autonomous and independent 
actions by other states, even if they provided some benefit to UN 
operations, so the UN and its members states would resist attempts to 
offset our assessed payments with such U.S. programs and activities. 
Moreover, if other states claimed their independent military 
operations constituted "indirect contributions" to UN peacekeeping 
operations, the U.S. would oppose any financial claims on the U.S. as 
lacking U.S. authorization. 

Therefore, using a criterion of being located in the same area and 
sharing the same objectives results in a distorted measure of U.S. 
contributions to UN operations. U.S. military activities around the 
world constitute direct and purposeful contributions to our own U.S. 
security interests irrespective of any coincidental benefits that may 
accrue to regional peacekeeping efforts. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense: 
Special Operations/low-Intensity Conflict: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-2500: 

February 6, 2002: 

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Christoff: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, "U.N. Peacekeeping: Estimated 
U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years 1996-2001," dated January 18, 2002 
(Code 320067). We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft 
report. 

DoD disagrees with the GAO's portrayal of various DoD operations as 
constituting "indirect support" or "indirect contributions" to United 
Nations peacekeeping. DoD also disagrees with the GAO's inclusion of 
the total costs of these DoD operations in attempting to tally a total 
dollar value for "contributions" to United Nations peacekeeping. 

The GAO report incorrectly states that certain DoD operations 
supported United Nations operations. In other cases, the report 
overstates the extent to which other DoD operations supported United 
Nations operations. While U.S. forces' activities may have advanced 
U.S. objectives similar to those of nearby, separate United Nations 
operations, as well as those of many other parties, that does not 
equate to providing the United Nations with "support." 

We have provided the GAO with separate, detailed comments to address 
these concerns as well as other errors of fact and technical matters 
in the draft report. 

Should you have any questions or require further information regarding 
this report, please contact Jim Alverson of my office at 703-614-0446. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Joseph J. Collins: 
Assistant Secretary for Stability Operations: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

USAID: 
U.S. Agency For International Development: 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20523: 

February 4, 2002: 

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Christoff: 

I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International 
Development's (USAID) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled 
"U.N. Peacekeeping: Estimated U.S. Contributions, Fiscal Years 1996-
2001" [February 2002]. Although USAID does not provide U.S. Government 
(USG) direct contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, the Agency 
has been fully supportive of indirect contributions to a number of the 
17 multi-dimensional U.N. Peacekeeping Operations conducted between 
fiscal years 1996 and 2001. USAID, through its Office of U.S. Foreign 
Disaster Assistance, Office of Food for Peace, Office of Transition 
Initiatives, and Regional Bureaus, has worked to provide indirect 
support to U.N. Peacekeeping Operations during the period examined. 

USAID is appreciative of the GAO's efforts to quantify the value of 
USG contributions to international peacekeeping efforts headed by the 
U.N. to maintain security and create the conditions necessary for 
peace. USAID's role cannot be underestimated in determining the 
overall effectiveness of a multi-dimensional U.N. Peacekeeping 
Operation. By providing emergency non-food and food commodities as 
well as rehabilitation and development assistance to affected 
populations during periods of conflict, USAID is attempting to develop 
stability and ensure the success of U.N. Peacekeeping Operations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John Marshall: 
Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The cost information in this report is based on official U.S. 
budget documents, but may not accurately portray precise costs. For 
example, our audit of the U.S. government's consolidated financial 
statements for fiscal year 2000 highlighted continuing problems in 
accurately reporting the costs associated with major portions of the 
government's operations and possible misstatements concerning reported 
obligations and outlays. See U.S. Government Financial Statements: FY 
2000 Reporting Underscores the Need to Accelerate Federal Financial 
Management Reform [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-570T], March 30, 2001. 

[2] Except where noted, all cost estimates in this report are 
presented in constant fiscal year 2001 dollars. 

[3] Figures for indirect military contributions are cumulative through 
June 30, 2001. 

[4] P.L. 103-236, § 404(b)(2), 106 Stat. 447. 

[5] We noted these problems in several previous reports, including 
U.N. Peacekeeping: Lessons Learned in Managing Recent Missions 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-94-9], Dec. 29, 
1993; Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Somalia [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-94-152BR], June 9, 1994; Peace 
Operations: Update on the Situation in Former Yugoslavia [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-95-148], Sept. 8, 1995; and 
United Nations: Limitations in Leading Missions Requiring Force to 
Restore Peace [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-97-
34], Mar. 27, 1997. 

[6] The United Nations prepares peacekeeping budgets based on a year 
that begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. 

[7] P. L. 106-113, app. G, 113 Stat. 1501A-475-476. The Congress 
authorized $926 million to be applied to past due payments for U.N. 
peacekeeping and other U.N. activities. 

[8] P.L. 107-46, 115 Stat. 259. 

[9] Many other contributing nations provide police units to U.N. 
peacekeeping operations from their national police forces; the United 
States provides police officers to the United Nations under individual 
contracts. 

[10] Other U.N. member nations also provide similar types of indirect 
support to U.N. peacekeeping operations, but these contributions were 
outside the scope of our work. 

[11] See Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward Achieving the Dayton 
Agreement's Goals [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-97-132], May 5, 1997; Bosnia 
Peace Operation: Pace of Implementing Dayton Accelerated as 
International Involvement Increased [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-138], June 5, 1998; Bosnia 
Peace Operation: Mission, Structure, and Transitions Strategy of 
NATO's Stabilization Force [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-99-19], October 8, 1998; and 
Balkans Security: Current and Projected Factors Affecting Regional 
Stability [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-125BR], 
April 24, 2001. 

[12] Section 407 of the Foreign Relations Act of 1994 to 1995 requires 
the President to provide the Congress with annual reports on how the 
United States used peacekeeping to advance U.S. interests. The reports 
also list the costs of DOD and State support to each U.N. peacekeeping 
operation, most of which are for services and materials provided on a 
reimbursable basis (P.L. 103-236). 

[13] Although we use the term "cost" throughout this report as a 
convenience, we are actually referring to a combination of actual 
expenditures and obligations. 

[14] As used in this report, DOD's "incremental costs" means those 
directly attributable costs that would not have been incurred if it 
were not for the operation. It should be recognized that DOD's 
financial systems cannot reliably determine costs and that only the 
total obligations are captured by the department's accounting systems. 
The military services use various management information systems to 
identify incremental obligations and to estimate costs. 

[15] All Department of Justice programs included as indirect 
contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations were funded by the 
Department of State and USAID. 

[16] See Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Toward Achieving the Dayton 
Agreement's Goals [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-97-132], May 5, 1997; and 
Balkans Security: Current and Projected Factors Affecting Regional 
Stability [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-125BR], 
April 24, 2001. 

[17] This figure consists primarily of incremental costs tracked in 
DOD's contingency operation cost reports. Contingency operations are 
those that go beyond the routine deployment or stationing of U.S. 
forces abroad, but that fall short of large-scale theater warfare. DOD 
figures include the costs of additional pay, training, facilities, 
transport, fuels, repairs, and replacement parts for an operation. 

[18] DOD reported additional costs associated with Operations Able 
Sentry and Uphold Democracy as reimbursable direct contributions to 
U.N. operations in Macedonia and Haiti, respectively. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: