U.S. POLICY ON PEACE OPERATIONS

"It is no longer an issue of whether America will choose isolationism or engagement. ...It is instead an issue of leadership and a calculation of the human costs of doing nothing or doing too little too late to prevent a range of catastrophes . . . " - Anonymous

INTRODUCTION
Without the political constraints of the Cold War, the U.S. has become increasingly involved in multilateral peace operations-politically, militarily, and financially. During the Cold War, the two superpowers abstained from participating in UN peace operations as a de facto but important principle, but the rapid expansion of UN peace operations and the increased cooperation in the UN Security Council at the end of the Cold War led the Bush and Clinton administrations to review U.S. policy towards and the U.S. role in multilateral peace operations. The communications revolution brought horrific scenes of human tragedy to international attention and further contributed to an expanded U.S. role.

As the world's sole superpower, the United States is consistently called upon to participate in peacekeeping and humanitarian activities around the globe. Today, the U.S. military finds itself deployed in more than 100 countries, acting as agents of our foreign policy. Many critics argue that the military was never designed to participate in peacekeeping and humanitarian activities and, furthermore, that those services unnecessarily risk lives, lower morale and reduce overall military readiness.

People who believe the military should participate in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions argue that as the world's sole superpower, the United States has a moral obligation to respond to the needs of the less fortunate and oppressed. Secondly, they argue that participations of that sort are in our best interests, primarily because they prevent these conflicts from escalating into full-scale wars. Finally, they argue that a more isolationist foreign policy is likely to encourage a potential enemy to step into the power vacuum that would be created by the United States' withdrawal from world affairs.

Sending U.S. forces into combat abroad is one of the most significant decisions an American president can face. Intervening where vital U.S. interests are threatened is not a hard choice. When the security of the country, the safety of American citizens, the credibility of our commitments, or the integrity of our economic lifelines are involved, the use of American military power can easily be justified - multilaterally if possible, unilaterally if necessary. This is particularly the case when it is clear that other options such as economic sanctions are not likely to work.

But what about situations like those in Somalia in 1992 and Rwanda in 1994? Significant national interests were not at stake, but the survival of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children clearly depended on the willingness of the United States and other countries to intervene militarily. In one case (Somalia), we did, and our humanitarian objective was achieved; in the other (Rwanda), we didn't, and we became indifferent spectators to one of the great humanitarian catastrophes of our time.

It can be argued that peacekeeping operations have made a substantial contribution toward building peace and stability in troubled regions. Even in Somalia and Bosnia, often labeled as "failures," peace operations helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. From the U.S. perspective, UN peacekeeping operations offer U.S. policy makers a broader range of options for acting in trouble spots and allow the U.S. to work with the international community rather than acting on its own or doing nothing in the face of emergencies outside U.S. borders. UN peacekeeping operations have also helped end conflicts that were stimulating hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. aid annually, as in El Salvador and Guatemala.

The continuing debate about United States participation in peacekeeping operations raises fundamental questions: Should the U.S. military be involved in UN humanitarian missions or in efforts to stabilize far-flung regions of the world? Or should it stay home and keep its powder dry for the big conflicts that could more directly affect U.S. interests or even the survival of the United States?

The policymaking community has not come to consensus on this policy debate. So where does the public weigh in? A 1998 nationwide poll of 1,204 Americans by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes indicated that approximately two-thirds of the public believed UN peacekeeping was a good idea and that the U.S. should contribute troops to it. If the U.S. voted in favor of a peacekeeping operation, 88 percent thought the US should be willing to contribute troops to it. If an operation addresses a situation in which civilians are being killed, 66 percent believed the U.S. should contribute troops "whether or not it served the national interest."

Seemingly open-ended commitments in the Balkans and the need to rebuild a war-torn Afghanistan have raised serious concerns within Congress and the current Bush administration about the use of the military and criteria for intervention. Because the ultimate success of a peace operation will be measured by the ability to achieve political objectives, it is important to understand and appreciate strategic policies, objectives, and decisions for conducting peace operations.

OBJECTIVES
1. Examine the evolution of U.S. participation in and policy toward peace operations.

2. Analyze the policies and principles that guide U.S. participation in peace operations as they support national security goals and objectives.

3. Analyze how domestic and international political realities shape U.S. policy toward peace operations.

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1. How has U.S. policy toward peace operations evolved? How has the international environment shaped U.S. policy and participation in peace operations? What factors seek to limit or constrain U.S. participation?

2. What should U.S. policy be toward peace operations? Should the U.S. conduct peace operations? If no, why?

3. Under what conditions should the U.S. engage in a peace operation? Should the U.S. conduct peace operations only for vital national interests? Are there other compelling reasons for participation?

4. Did PDD-25 and PDD-56 adequately address the issues for which they were intended? What historical developments led to their implementation?

5. What are lessons learned about U.S. peace operations policy, both positive and negative?

6. How has the Global War on Terror impacted the policy debate about U.S. involvement in peace operations?

REQUIRED READING
Sewall, Sarah. "U.S. Policy and Practice Regarding Multilateral Peace Operations." Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Working Paper 01-3. 2001. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/Web%20Working%20Papers/PKO.pdf

Serafino, Nina. "Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement." Congressional Research Service Issue Brief for Congress. November 1, 2001. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB94040.pdf

MacKinnon, Michael. "The White House View on Peace Operations." The Evolution of U.S. Peacekeeping Policy Under Clinton: A Fairweather Friend. Frank Cass Publishers. 2000. pp. 13-37. (ANTHOLOGY)

Presidential Decision Directive 56. "Managing Complex Contingency Operations." http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd56.htm

Presidential Decision Directive 25. "U.S. Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations." http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm