UN Peacekeeping Operations: State Should Take Additional Steps to Work with the UN to Improve Effectiveness and Performance Information
Released: 2019-03-19T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Overview of Peacekeeping Operations

In accordance with the UN Charter, peacekeeping operations aim to maintain international peace and security, among other things. The UN has deployed 71 peacekeeping operations since 1948. As of December 2018, the UN had 14 active peacekeeping operations worldwide (see fig. 1).

We have previously reported that UN peacekeeping operations have become more complex since 1998. Traditional UN peacekeeping operations were primarily military in nature and limited to monitoring cease-fire agreements and stabilizing situations on the ground while political efforts were made to resolve conflicts. More recently, in response to increasingly complex situations in which conflicts may be internal, involve many parties, and include civilians as deliberate targets, several UN peacekeeping operations deploy civilian and police personnel, in addition to those from the military, and focus on peacebuilding activities.

Key UN Components in Establishing UN Peacekeeping Operations

There are three principal UN bodies active in peacekeeping:

The General Assembly, which consists of 193 member states that work through membership in one of six main committees and various subsidiary components tasked with specific issue areas.

The Security Council, which has 15 members, including 5 permanent members with veto power: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. The remaining 10 members of the Security Council are elected for 2-year terms to ensure geographical representation.

The Secretariat, which comprises the administrative component of the UN and is led by the Secretary-General, who has responsibility for managing multiple UN departments, offices, and activities.

The United States holds positions in two of these three components—the General Assembly and the Security Council. See table 1 for more information.

The United States’ Role in UN Peacekeeping

State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs (State/IO) and the USUN serve primary roles with regard to the UN. State/IO is the U.S. government’s primary interlocutor with the UN and other international organizations, and is charged with advancing U.S. national interests through multilateral engagement on a range of global issues, including peace and security, nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, economic development, climate change, and global health. The USUN serves as the United States’ delegation to the UN and is responsible for carrying out U.S. participation in the organization. The USUN represents the United States’ political, legal, military, and public diplomacy interests at the UN.

As part of its oversight of UN peacekeeping operations, State/IO conducts annual monitoring trips to most UN peacekeeping operations and documents the findings of these trips in Mission Monitoring and Evaluation reports. These reports summarize State/IO’s evaluation of each peacekeeping operation’s progress toward meeting its mandate and identify challenges the operation faces in doing so. State/IO summarizes the findings of these reports for the National Security Council in a U.S. strategy and priorities memorandum that includes recommendations for U.S. action, including how the United States should conduct negotiations and vote on upcoming renewals of the mandates that authorize peacekeeping operations. According to State, the National Security Council conducts an interagency policy formulation process based on this input.

Other U.S. government entities also support UN peacekeeping operations. For instance, State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs provide capacity-building support for troops and police from troop- and police- contributing countries, respectively, serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Additionally, the Department of Defense participates in UN peacekeeping operations by providing UN forces with equipment, personnel, and other support services.

The United States’ Principles of Effective Peacekeeping

In April 2017, during a Security Council meeting on peacekeeping, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN outlined five principles that the United States believes are critical for effective peacekeeping. She remarked that, while peacekeeping is the UN’s most powerful tool to promote international peace and security, there is room for improvement, citing examples of operations that no longer need to exist or have limited host country consent. To make peacekeeping operations more effective, she emphasized that the UN should identify operations that lack the underlying political conditions for a resolution to the conflict, noting that numerous studies have concluded that such conditions are central to an operation’s success. To guide this process, she announced a set of five principles to which peacekeeping operations should be held: 1. Peacekeeping operations must support political solutions to conflict. 2. Operations must have host country consent. 3. Mandates must be realistic and achievable. 4. There should be an exit strategy, which would articulate the Security Council’s agreement on what success looks like and how to achieve it. 5. The Security Council should be willing to adjust peacekeeping mandates when situations improve or fail to improve.

Since the Permanent Representative’s announcement of these principles, State/IO has included an assessment of each peacekeeping operation against these principles in the U.S. strategy and priorities memoranda that it prepares for the National Security Council. With regard to the fifth principle, in these memoranda, State/IO assesses whether and how a mandate itself should be changed, rather than assessing the Security Council’s willingness to change the mandate. Officials indicated that they conduct their assessment in this manner in order to inform and establish the U.S. negotiating position.

The UN Security Council Establishes and Renews Peacekeeping Operations, Which Conduct a Range of Tasks Working with UN Member States, the UN Security Council Establishes and Renews Peacekeeping Operations

UN Peacekeeping Operations Are Mandated to Perform Tasks Such As Maintaining Ceasefires, Protecting Civilians, and Providing Electoral Assistance

Security Council resolutions establishing UN peacekeeping operations define mandates, or tasks, for each operation, and the peacekeeping operations perform a variety of activities to fulfill these tasks. In some cases, these activities are specifically mandated by a Security Council resolution; in others, the peacekeeping operation engages in an activity pursuant to a broad grant of authority to achieve a task. Each UN peacekeeping operation performs a unique set of tasks. The mandates of peacekeeping operations established prior to 1998 tend to include the monitoring of cease-fire as a mandated task, while those established after 1998 also include tasks such as the protection of civilians, facilitation of humanitarian assistance, and enforcement of economic sanctions or an arms embargo. Comparatively, operations in the African region have mandates that include the highest number of tasks. See appendix II for a list of the mandated tasks of all 14 peacekeeping operations.

The UN has defined 16 categories into which these activities can be classified, including supervision or monitoring of ceasefire agreements, the protection and promotion of human rights, and protecting civilians. See table 3 for a list and description of these categories.

State’s Assessments Show that UN Peacekeeping Operations Generally Do Not Fully Meet U.S. Principles of Effective Peacekeeping and Face Challenges to Achieving Their Mandates

Based on our review of State’s most recent assessments and discussions with State officials, we found that despite some military and political successes of individual peacekeeping operations, UN peacekeeping operations generally do not fully meet the U.S.-stated principles of effective peacekeeping and face challenges to achieving their mandates. For the 11 peacekeeping operations with mandates that renew on a regular basis, State prepares strategy and priority memoranda for appropriate committees of the National Security Council to inform the mandate renewal process. We reviewed these memoranda and spoke with State officials about their assessments of these operations against four of the U.S. principles. Table 4 presents GAO’s categorization of the results of State’s assessments.

Supporting political solutions to conflict. Based on State’s assessment, we categorized 10 of the 11 peacekeeping operations as having met (five) or partially met (five) the principle of supporting political solutions to the conflict. For example, in Cyprus, State assessed that the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) met this principle because its activities generally support a political solution, despite the country’s slow progress toward negotiating a final settlement of conflict between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. We categorized one peacekeeping operation, the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, as not meeting this principle.

Host country consent. Based on State’s assessment, we categorized all 11 peacekeeping operations as having met (four) or partially met (seven) the principle of host country consent. For example, State officials assessed that the government of the Central African Republic cooperates fully with the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). With respect to other peacekeeping operations, officials noted that a country’s consent to host an operation differs from cooperation with all aspects of a peacekeeping operation. For example, State reported that while the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has consented to the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (MONUSCO) presence in the country, the government has, at times, been hostile toward and actively taken steps to undermine the mission.

Realistic and achievable mandates. Based on State’s assessment, we categorized seven of the 11 peacekeeping operations as having met (two) or partially met (five) the principle of having realistic and achievable mandates. For example, we categorized the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) as having partially met this principle because State reports that it has been able to carry out many of its mandated tasks; however, according to State’s assessments, government obstructions, a slow peace process, and mission management inefficiencies prevent the full implementation of UNAMID’s mandate. We categorized the remaining four peacekeeping operations as not meeting this principle.

Exit strategies. Based on State’s assessment, we categorized five of the 11 peacekeeping operations as having met (two) or partially met (three) the principle of having an exit strategy in their mandates. For example, we categorized MINUSCA as having partially met the principle because, according to State’s assessment, the operation’s mandate has an exit strategy that will take several years to achieve given the lack of host government capacity. We categorized the remaining six peacekeeping operations as not meeting this principle. For example, based on State’s assessment, we categorized the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) as not meeting this principle because the operation had not considered a near-term exit strategy because of ongoing conflict and the political stalemate in South Sudan.

In addition to the four principles in the table, the fifth principle for effective peacekeeping reads as the Security Council’s willingness to change the mandate. In its memoranda, State assessed the fifth principle by examining whether the mandate was achieving its objective and, if not, should be adjusted. Using this method, State assessments show that the Security Council should adjust the mandates of nine of the 11 peacekeeping operations. For example, State assessed that the UNFICYP (Cyprus) mandate should be adapted to address the stalled political process.

Although we found that State’s assessments show most peacekeeping operations are not fully meeting the U.S.-stated principles for effective peacekeeping, State officials we interviewed noted the important role UN peacekeeping operations play in maintaining stability in volatile conflicts around the world. These officials noted the dangerous and hostile environments in which peacekeeping operations are located, and, in some cases, human atrocities these operations help prevent. Further, U.S. and UN officials cited UN peacekeeping operations’ strengths, including international and local acceptance, access to global expertise, and the ability to leverage assistance from multilateral donors and development banks. Officials also cited strengths of individual operations, such as the protection of civilians against atrocities in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic, assistance toward the peaceful conduct of elections in numerous countries, police capacity building in Haiti, and support to peace processes and agreements in numerous countries.

According to State/IO and USUN officials, continual evaluation and adjustment of the mandates of UN peacekeeping missions to better align with the U.S. principles remains a key tenet of the Administration’s UN peacekeeping policy, but the U.S. government faces two key challenges in this regard. First, some aspects of two of the five principles—host country consent and support for a political process—may be outside of the control of any international organization or bilateral partner. For example, MONUSCO’s (Democratic Republic of the Congo) mandate includes the provision of elections assistance in support of the nation’s political process, but, according to State officials, the lack of host government cooperation has relegated MONUSCO’s efforts in this area to technical assistance. Second, these officials explained that the Security Council does not always adopt U.S. proposals to change mandates to align with these principles, such as including an exit strategy. Changing peacekeeping mandates requires nine affirmative votes and no vetoes from permanent Council members, which, according to State and USUN officials, can be difficult. For example, USUN officials stated that the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) had fulfilled its mandate, but Russia and China were not supporting a vote to close the operation.

Moreover, State officials noted that the assessment process using the principles began in 2017 and the United States has had a limited number of opportunities to negotiate changes to peacekeeping mandates because renewals generally occur annually. State officials cited several examples of notable progress, however, in improving the efficiency and focus of UN peacekeeping operations. According to State officials, through U.S. leadership, the Security Council reconfigured the operation in Haiti to focus on police and the rule of law. Additionally, the Security Council changed and downsized the operation in Darfur to reflect current political and security realities. State officials also said that the UN Security Council supported responsible drawdowns of peacekeeping operations, most recently in Cote d’Ivoire, while pushing peacekeepers in Lebanon to use all of their mandated authorities to be more effective in carrying out their tasks.

According to State officials, adherence to these principles is not sufficient to guarantee success. An operation could fully meet all the principles, but still face challenges carrying out its mandate because of formidable circumstances, such as insecure security environments or limited government cooperation. However, State officials also noted that these principles describe critical conditions for effective peacekeeping in that an operation that does not meet these principles is unlikely to be able to fully carry out its mandate. Moreover, given the importance of establishing the necessary conditions for peacekeeping success, State/IO and USUN officials acknowledged that State must continue to work with the Security Council to ensure that peacekeeping operations meet the principles of effectiveness, such as modifying mandates to include exit strategies. In doing so, the UN and its member states could have greater assurance that they have set up peacekeeping operations for success.

The United States Has Worked with the UN to Adjust Peacekeeping Mandates, but Does Not Have Sufficient Information to Determine if UN Resource Decisions Accurately Reflect These Adjustments The United States Has Worked with Security Council Members to Adjust Peacekeeping Mandates

When the U.S. agencies involved in peacekeeping agree that the UN should change a peacekeeping operation’s mandate, USUN officials told us that the USUN works with other Security Council members to make adjustments, such as adding or removing tasks from an operation’s mandate. While not all proposals are adopted by the Security Council, State officials highlighted several types of mandate adjustments the United States has pursued, including:

Removal of tasks. State and USUN officials told us they strive to remove tasks from peacekeeping mandates when those tasks have been achieved or are no longer relevant or achievable. For example, officials noted that the USUN successfully advocated that election monitoring be removed from the list of mandated tasks for MINUSCA because the elections had taken place in the previous year and, therefore, the task was no longer relevant.

Addition of language to prioritize tasks. State and USUN officials told us that another strategy is to add language to a mandate to designate priority tasks. Officials stated that, as a result of such language in mandates for MINUSCA, MONUSCO, and MINUSMA, management at these peacekeeping operations had shifted mission resources to focus on priority tasks. For example, officials cited MINUSCA’s proposed budget, which increased resources for protection of civilians—a task designated as a priority by the Security Council—and reduced resources for Security Sector Reform, an area of less relevance to the mission given the current situation in the Central African Republic.

Addition of language to clarify exit strategies. State and USUN officials noted that adding language to clarify exit strategies aids an operation’s success. For example, for the MINUJUSTH (Haiti) 2017 mandate, USUN officials noted that the United States had advocated successfully for the Security Council to include language calling for an exit strategy with benchmarks to assist the UN in monitoring the progress of the operation’s transition to a non-peacekeeping mission beginning in October 2019.

USUN Does Not Have Sufficient Information from the UN on the Cost of Peacekeeping Operations to Determine Accurate Resource Allocation When Adjusting Mandates

USUN officials told us that they do not have sufficient information to allow them to determine accurate resource allocation to peacekeeping operations when the Security Council makes a change to the mandate. For example, USUN officials told us that as a result of the Security Council’s decision to reduce resources for specific tasks in MONUSCO’s 2017 mandate—such as Security Sector Reform and Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration activities, where little progress had been achieved—the United States had sought to reduce the MONUSCO budget to reflect this change. However, the USUN did not have complete information from the UN on all of the costs associated with this change, including support costs, such as flight hours and fuel for transport vehicles. In the absence of such information from the UN, USUN officials estimated these costs and advocated for a reduction in MONUSCO’s budget based on their own estimates. USUN officials noted that without input from the UN, they did not have sufficient information to determine the accuracy of their estimates.

USUN officials told us that these information gaps exist because UN peacekeeping budgets do not include estimated costs by task. Rather, UN peacekeeping budgets provide information on the operation’s use of financial resources for personnel and operational costs. Thus, according to USUN officials, when the Security Council changes a peacekeeping operation’s mandate—such as by adding or removing a task—it is not clear how to adjust the budget for that operation to accurately reflect the change. UN headquarters officials told us that the UN does not prepare peacekeeping budgets with estimated costs by task because it is challenging to do so. However, senior officials with whom we spoke at two peacekeeping operations said that, despite challenges, it is possible to estimate costs by mandated task, which would provide additional budget transparency for the UN. Further, USUN officials stated that having UN estimates readily available to all member states would not only improve the accuracy of decisions related to resource allocation, but also improve the transparency of the budget negotiation process.

UN guidance on peacekeeping states that when the UN changes an existing peacekeeping mandate it should make commensurate changes in the resources available to the operation. Further, internationally- accepted and federal standards for internal control note that organizations should use quality information to make informed decisions to achieve their objectives. Without information on estimated costs by task, USUN and other UN member states have difficulty determining that resources for UN peacekeeping operations accurately reflect changes to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. With this information, the United States and the international community can better ensure that resources provided to peacekeeping operations support the tasks agreed upon by UN member states.

Member States Have Expressed Concerns Regarding the Quality of Peacekeeping Performance Information, Despite UN Reform Efforts in This Area

Member States Have Expressed Concerns about the Completeness and Timeliness of UN Peacekeeping Performance Data

UN member states, including the United States, have expressed concerns regarding the quality of information regarding UN peacekeeping operations. Specifically, according to member states, information on peacekeeping performance can be incomplete and is not always provided on a timely basis, despite ongoing UN efforts to improve performance information. UN Security Council resolutions and peacekeeping guidance documents have stated the importance of having access to quality performance information to make management decisions. For example, UN Security Council resolutions note that data—based on clear and well- defined benchmarks—should be used to improve the performance of peacekeeping operations. The UN’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has also called for a timely flow of information regarding how well peacekeeping operations perform their mandated activities. Additionally, internationally-accepted and federal standards for internal control also highlight the importance of quality information in enhancing the ability of organizations to achieve their performance goals. Quality information includes information that is complete and provided on a timely basis, among other attributes.

Completeness

UN member states have expressed concerns regarding the completeness of peacekeeping performance information. For example, USUN officials have noted concerns related to the completeness of performance information about peacekeeping troops. USUN officials noted that while the UN maintains some performance information on peacekeeping operations, such as a database with information on troop capabilities and readiness to deploy, it does not provide a complete picture of peacekeeping performance. Specifically, USUN officials noted that they would like better performance information about when peacekeeping units are engaging well, failing to engage, or lack the training to perform the tasks they have been asked to carry out. Also, the Security Council noted concern in a September 2018 resolution sponsored by the United States about the underperformance of some peacekeepers, such as inaction in the face of imminent threats of physical violence against civilians and conduct issues.

Another concern relates to the completeness of performance information about civilian peacekeeping staff. According to the UN, civilian peacekeeping staff, who comprise about 14 percent of all peacekeeping personnel, perform many of the mandated activities of peacekeeping operations, including promoting and protecting human rights, helping strengthen the rule of law, and fostering the political process. However, according to USUN officials, the UN needs more complete information on the performance of these staff. For example, as noted above, UN officials told us that the UN had developed a database to collect performance information on military personnel staffed to UN peacekeeping operations, but did not have a similar way to track information on civilian personnel. Additionally, the Security Council noted in a September 2018 resolution that the UN must improve evaluation of all UN personnel supporting peacekeeping operations, including civilians. Individual member states have concurred, with some stating that better performance information is needed in all sectors of UN peacekeeping and others noting the need for comprehensive information on all peacekeeping personnel, including civilian personnel.

The Security Council has also noted concerns about underreporting of information, which can affect data completeness. For example, in a September 2018 resolution, the Security Council expressed concern regarding the underreporting of sexual exploitation and abuse by some UN peacekeepers and non-UN forces authorized under a Security Council mandate, including military, civilian, and police personnel. The UN has reported that instances of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers undermine the credibility of peacekeeping operations by breaking down the trust between an operation and the communities it serves.

Timeliness

UN member states have also expressed concerns regarding the timeliness of UN performance information on peacekeeping. For example, USUN officials cited instances of conduct violations by UN troops in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo about which the Security Council had not been informed for several months. Ultimately, the Security Council learned of these incidents from media reporting and had to seek additional information from the UN Secretariat.

Additionally, the Security Council has expressed concern regarding the timely reporting of performance information on police personnel assisting peacekeeping operations. For instance, in Resolution 2382 adopted in November 2017, the Security Council emphasized the need to improve accountability and effectiveness in the performance of peacekeeping operations, requesting that the UN Secretariat provide member states timely and complete information regarding the training needs of police personnel.

Further, the UN’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has also called for a timely flow of information on a range of peacekeeping performance issues, such as reports and evaluations of peacekeeping operations, incidents involving the safety and security of peacekeepers, and troop misconduct, such as sexual exploitation and abuse. For example, in its March 2018 report, the committee stressed the need for timely information sharing about serious incidents involving the safety and security of peacekeepers, noting that prompt reporting of such incidents contributes to their prevention and positive resolution.

UN Is in Early Stages of Reform Efforts to Improve Performance Information and the Extent to Which the Efforts Will Address Member States’ Concerns Is Unclear

USUN officials told us that they have concerns about the quality of peacekeeping performance data because the UN does not have comprehensive performance information about its peacekeeping operations and officials are unsure whether new UN reforms in this area will address their concerns. USUN officials described various UN sources of performance information on peacekeeping operations, such as strategic reviews conducted by the Secretary-General on the performance of peacekeeping operations and a UN database containing information on peacekeeping troops’ readiness to deploy. However, officials noted that this information is insufficient to help them assess the overall performance of UN peacekeeping operations. For instance, USUN officials noted that the information collected is not standardized across UN peacekeeping operations or for all peacekeeping personnel. Without better information, USUN officials said that they had challenges obtaining a clear picture of the performance of UN peacekeeping operations. According to USUN officials, a culture of performance in peacekeeping is important to better deliver on peacekeeping mandates and improve the safety and security of peacekeepers in the field.

Acknowledging challenges related to peacekeeping, the UN Secretary- General announced a peacekeeping reform initiative known as Action for Peacekeeping in March 2018. As part of this effort, the Secretary-General invited member states to help develop a set of mutually agreed principles and commitments to improve peacekeeping operations. The Secretary- General announced these shared commitments in August 2018 and, as of September 2018, 151 member states and several regional organizations had made political commitments to implement them. The declaration of shared commitments includes a commitment to ensure the highest level of peacekeeping performance and to hold all peacekeeping personnel accountable for effective performance by, among other things, ensuring that performance data are used to inform planning, evaluation, deployment decisions and reporting.

However, USUN officials told us in October 2018 that their concerns about the quality of UN peacekeeping performance data still remained because the UN is in the early stages of adopting these reforms. Further, USUN officials stated that they have yet to see concrete plans of action and as such, it is not clear to them that the reforms will address their concerns to ensure that the UN provides complete and timely peacekeeping performance information to its member states. For instance, officials stated that in September 2018—6 months after the Action for Peacekeeping agreements to improve the use of performance data to manage peacekeeping operations—the Security Council adopted Resolution 2436, which noted continued concerns related to completeness and timeliness of peacekeeping performance information provided to the Council. Without fully addressing member states’ concerns about the quality of information on the performance of peacekeeping operations, the Security Council is limited in its ability to identify problems and take corrective action to improve the performance of peacekeeping operations. More complete and timely performance information could enhance the Security Council’s ability to effectively manage peacekeeping operations.

Conclusions

Peacekeeping operations are a key instrument for implementing the UN’s central mission of maintaining international peace and security. As a member state of the UN, a permanent member of the Security Council, and the largest financial contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget, the United States plays a significant role in both the management of peacekeeping operations and encouraging reforms to improve peacekeeping activities. According to State, the U.S.-stated principles for effective peacekeeping are critical conditions for peacekeeping operations to carry out their mandates. Given the importance of establishing the necessary conditions for peacekeeping success, State/IO and USUN officials acknowledged the imperative of continuing to work with the Security Council to ensure that peacekeeping operations meet U.S.-stated principles of effectiveness. In doing so, the UN and its member states could have greater assurance that they have set up peacekeeping operations for success. Without information on estimated costs by task, USUN and other UN member states have difficulty determining that resources for UN peacekeeping operations accurately reflect changes to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. With this information, the United States and the international community can better ensure that resources provided to peacekeeping operations support the tasks agreed upon by UN member states. Additionally, while the UN has initiated reform efforts to strengthen peacekeeping, including better use of performance information, UN member states have continued to express concerns about the quality of this information and note that it is too soon to tell whether reforms will address their concerns. Without fully addressing member states’ concerns about the quality of information on the performance of peacekeeping operations, the Security Council is limited in its ability to identify problems and take corrective action to improve the performance of peacekeeping operations.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following three recommendations to State: The Secretary of State should continue to work with the Permanent Representative to the United Nations to ensure that UN peacekeeping operations fully meet principles of effective peacekeeping. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of State should work with the Permanent Representative to the United Nations to ensure that the United Nations provides information to member states on the estimated costs of mandated peacekeeping tasks to provide better cost information when the Security Council adjusts peacekeeping mandates. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of State should continue to work with the Permanent Representative to the United Nations to ensure that the United Nations takes additional steps to address member states’ concerns about complete and timely information on the performance of United Nations peacekeeping operations. (Recommendation 3)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Defense and State for review and comment. The Department of Defense told us that they had no comments on the draft report. In its comments, reproduced in appendix V, State concurred with our recommendations. State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate throughout the report.

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees; the Acting Secretary of the Department of Defense; and the Secretary of the Department of State. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In this report, we examine (1) the United Nations’ (UN) process to establish and renew peacekeeping operations, including the tasks these operations perform; (2) the Department of State’s (State) assessment of the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations; (3) how the United States works within the UN to adjust peacekeeping mandates and associated resources; and (4) UN member states’ concerns regarding the UN’s performance information.

To examine the UN’s process to establish and renew peacekeeping operations and the tasks these operations perform, we reviewed UN policy and guidance, as well as various UN websites accessed as of November 2018, and interviewed State and UN officials to discuss UN processes. To determine the tasks these operations perform, we analyzed the most recent UN resolution authorizing the peacekeeping operation passed by the Security Council as of December 31, 2018— generally referred to as a mandate—for each of UN’s 14 peacekeeping operations, and categorized the tasks of each operation. We describe UN categories of activities to achieve mandated tasks as listed in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations-Department of Field Support’s Core Pre-deployment Training Materials for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, which lists and defines 16 categories. We also analyzed the most recent mandate as of December 31, 2018 for the 14 UN peacekeeping operations to identify the date on which the authority for each operation expires and the period of time reported until the next renewal decision.

To examine State’s assessment of the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations, we analyzed State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs’ (State/IO) most recent Mission Monitoring and Evaluation reports as of December 2018 and the accompanying U.S. strategy and priorities memoranda outlining U.S. priorities for the operations’ mandate renewal. State bases its Mission Monitoring and Evaluation reports on annual field visits to peacekeeping operations during which assessors interview U.S. and UN officials to evaluate the operation’s progress toward meeting its mandate and identify factors that affect the operation’s ability to do so. Based on these reports, State’s strategy and priorities memoranda summarize U.S. observations on the peacekeeping operation and, among other things, propose options for U.S. action within the Security Council. Each of the 11 memoranda we reviewed also includes State’s assessment of the peacekeeping operation against the U.S. government’s stated principles of effective peacekeeping, which State considers to be critical conditions for an operation to successfully implement its mandate. These principles are whether a peacekeeping operation (1) supports a political solution to conflict, (2) has host country consent, (3) has a realistic and achievable mandate, and (4) has an exit strategy; and (5) whether the Security Council is willing to adjust the mandate if the situation in the country improves or fails to improve.

We reviewed State’s memoranda on the operations and considered the following types of factors when determining whether to categorize State’s assessments as met, partially met, or not met: Supporting political solutions: Mediation processes, peace agreements, and support for democratic elections.

Host country consent: Consent to the operation, and the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical to carry out its mandated tasks.

Realistic and achievable mandates: Extent to which operation tasks appeared feasible in light of current conditions and available resources.

Exit strategies: Strategic goals and targets, strategic planning, and timetables for withdrawal.

We categorized a principle as “met” if State indicated that the operation was generally succeeding in an area. We categorized a principle as “not met” if State indicated that the operation was generally not succeeding in an area. We categorized a principle as “partially met” if State indicated that the operation had some areas of success, but was generally not succeeding or restricted from success in some way. The fifth principle for effective peacekeeping reads as the Security Council’s willingness to change the mandate. However, in its memoranda, State/IO assesses whether and how a mandate should be changed, rather than assessing the Security Council’s willingness to change the mandate. For this principle, we categorized State’s results as either “yes” or “no.” We coded the results as “yes” if State assessed that the Security Council should adjust the mandate. We categorized the results as “no” if State assessed that the Security Council did not need to adjust the mandate. The coding was conducted by one GAO analyst and separately verified by two other GAO analysts. In December 2018, we met with State/IO and USUN officials to discuss their current assessment of each peacekeeping operation. We updated our categorization of State’s written assessments to reflect the agency’s most current assessment as appropriate.

We discussed our methodology and results with officials from the U.S. Mission to the UN (USUN), who confirmed that our methodology and results were valid. We also discussed with these officials additional steps the United States could take to ensure that peacekeeping operations fully meet the principles for effective peacekeeping. We did not independently verify State’s assessment, but we reviewed State’s methodology and discussed it with officials and found the information in State’s reporting to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To examine how the United States works within the UN to adjust peacekeeping mandates and associated resources, we interviewed USUN officials to understand the different approaches the Security Council takes to revise mandates and to understand the types of information available to UN member states to determine appropriate resource adjustments when mandates change. We also interviewed a senior official from the UN Department of Field Support’s Field Budget and Finance Division and reviewed UN budget and performance reports to identify how the UN reports on peacekeeping budget information to member states. In addition, we interviewed officials at two of the four peacekeeping operations we selected for in-depth case studies, as discussed below, to determine whether they were able to report on the operation’s budget by mandated task. To determine the extent to which State has sufficient information to advocate for resources adjustments when mandates change, we compared information currently provided by the UN to internationally-accepted and federal standards for internal control, which state that organizations should have quality information to help them make decisions.

To examine UN member states’ concerns regarding the UN’s performance information, we interviewed officials from the USUN to understand their concerns regarding performance information available to them from the UN. Based on these interviews, we identified two main issues of completeness and timeliness. To understand the extent to which UN member states share these concerns, we analyzed the UN Special Committee on Peacekeeping’s 2016, 2017, and 2018 annual reports and Security Council resolutions to confirm member states’ concerns related to completeness and timeliness of performance information. We did not independently verify the veracity of these concerns, because we did not have access to the UN’s internal performance information. We also reviewed UN documents on the Secretary-General’s new reform efforts, transcripts of meetings the Security Council held on peacekeeping in 2018, and Security Council resolutions to identify steps the UN is taking to address these concerns. Further, we analyzed the extent to which the UN could better address member state concerns regarding performance information by comparing the Secretary-General’s plans for implementing the UN’s new reform efforts with internationally-accepted and federal standards for internal controls, which identify necessary elements of performance information.

To inform our analyses of all four objectives, we also selected UN peacekeeping operations in four countries—the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, and Lebanon—for in-depth case studies. We selected these peacekeeping operations because they are the largest of the three types the UN employs, and are located in the four geographic regions in which UN peacekeeping operations are currently deployed— Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere. While the findings from these peacekeeping operations cannot be generalized, they provide an illustrative mix of the UN’s peacekeeping activities. To inform our audit, we conducted a literature review using ProQuest language searches, focusing on literature published between 2015 and 2018. In total, we identified and reviewed 12 relevant publications that helped inform our study of the four operations. We conducted fieldwork at peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Kosovo, and Lebanon, and interviewed U.S., UN, and host government officials, as well as representatives of other donor countries and civil society. In lieu of fieldwork, we conducted videoconferences with senior officials at the peacekeeping operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to March 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Mandated Tasks of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

We analyzed United Nations (UN) Security Council resolutions authorizing the 14 UN peacekeeping operations, in effect as of December 31, 2018, and identified the mandated tasks of these operations. See table 5 below for a complete list.

Appendix III: Department of State’s Assessment of Challenges United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Face

To inform its oversight of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations, the Department of State’s Bureau of International Organizations Affairs (State/IO) conducts annual monitoring trips to most UN peacekeeping operations. State/IO evaluates peacekeeping operations’ progress toward meeting their mandates and identifies any challenges to their progress. State/IO documents its findings in Mission Monitoring and Evaluation reports and disseminates these reports for comment to various State bureaus involved in international peacekeeping efforts and to relevant offices in the Department of Defense. The findings of these assessments are intended to inform the National Security Council and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in their decision-making.

We analyzed the most recent Mission Monitoring and Evaluation reports that State had conducted through June 30, 2018. In our analysis of State’s assessments, we found that the challenges State most frequently identified for each UN peacekeeping operation were those associated with host government cooperation, resources, and the security situation.

Host Government Cooperation

According to the UN, the UN does not deploy a peacekeeping operation unless the organization has the consent of the involved parties, which often include the governments of the countries in which conflicts occur. While host governments generally have consented to the presence of UN peacekeeping operations, State found instances in which the host government did not cooperate fully or did not have a positive relationship with the peacekeeping operation working in-country. For example, in Darfur, State found that while the Sudanese government had demonstrated some progress, it continued to restrict the African Union- United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur’s (UNAMID) access and movement in certain regions. Additionally, according to government officials in Kosovo, the government of Kosovo does not engage with the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) because it considered the operation to have completed its mandate as a transitional authority once Kosovo declared its independence and established a functioning government. As a result, UNMIK works on community trust- building activities with local communities according to the vision and strategic direction of the head of the peacekeeping operation.

Resources

State found that several operations faced financial, human, and material resource constraints. For example, State assessed that the peacekeeping operations in Mali; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the Golan Heights, Syria; and Haiti did not have enough funds to meet their needs. State also found that troops in the peacekeeping operations in the Central African Republic; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and the Golan Heights, Syria did not have enough troops with sufficient skillsets. Further, State found that the operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Haiti; Mali; and Abyei, Sudan lacked adequate equipment. Officials from the peacekeeping operation at the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) also told us they anticipated a budget shortfall of over $2 million for the 2018-2019 peacekeeping fiscal year as a result of a reduced budget and an increase in UN troop salaries.

However, officials at the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) told us about ways in which they were maximizing and readjusting existing resources in spite of these challenges. They stated that MONUSCO’s March 2018 mandate renewal was intended to streamline the operation and was informed by the UN’s most recent strategic review of the operation. Senior MONUSCO officials also told us that, as a result of the review, the Security Council had reduced its work in the justice reform sector by 50 percent because it believed the operation would be able to engage more meaningfully in this arena after the presidential election.

Security Situation

State identified several peacekeeping operations that worked in environments in which there were ongoing ceasefire violations or unstable security situations. State found that peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the Golan Heights, Syria; Western Sahara; Cyprus; and Lebanon faced ongoing ceasefire violations. State also found that the peacekeeping operations in Mali and the Central African Republic worked in dangerous conditions and the operations in Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo faced persistent attacks on civilians. During our field work in Lebanon, UNIFIL officials emphasized the importance and successes of the UNIFIL-facilitated tripartite mechanism, which provides regular opportunities for soldiers from the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Israeli Defense Force to help prevent any event from escalating into a major event. According to U.S. embassy officials, because of the prevalence of armed groups in eastern Congo, the government’s and international community’s response to the Ebola outbreak that started there in August 2018 was significantly more complex and challenging than their response to the May 2018–July 2018 outbreak in northwestern Congo, an area that does not have a significant presence of armed groups.

Appendix IV: Synopsis of Four United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Key Challenges They Face

We selected United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations in four countries—the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, and Lebanon—for case studies. Below is a synopsis of each of these peacekeeping operations and key challenges they face, according to U.S. and UN officials.

Key Facts About DRC Population: Approximately 83.3 million people live in DRC. About 60 percent of the population is under the age of 25, and about 40 percent is under the age of 15. There are over 200 ethnic groups; the majority is Bantu.

Map of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Government: DRC is a semi- presidential republic. The last presidential election was held on December 30, 2018.

Economy: DRC’s estimated gross domestic product for 2017 was $40.4 billion. Conflict and corruption have contributed to the poor economic performance of DRC, despite its vast natural resource wealth.

Timeline of Key Events 1960: The Republic of the Congo is granted independence from Belgium. 1960-1964: The UN deploys the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC) to ensure the withdrawal of Belgian forces from the Republic of the Congo, among other things. 1998: “Africa’s World War” begins, with seven countries fighting in DRC.

Current Status and Challenges According to U.S. and United Nations (UN) officials, MONUSCO’s most important mandated tasks are the protection of civilians and support to the government of DRC’s elections. According to the Secretary-General, the impact of intercommunal violence and attacks by armed groups continue to persist in eastern and southern DRC and have led to the displacement of thousands of people. Held after several delays, the results of the December 30, 2018 national and provincial elections are expected to result in the first democratic transition of power in the nation’s history. Despite varied disputes over preliminary results and reports of sporadic violence, the UN reports that the elections were relatively peaceful. However, according to the UN, pending the announcement of the final results by the DRC Constitutional Court, the coming days will be critical.

1999: The Lusaka Ceasefire is signed, ending the war. The UN establishes a peacekeeping operation in DRC—United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).

July 2010: The UN renames MONUC MONUSCO and updates the peacekeeping operation’s mandate.

According to U.S. and UN officials, the biggest challenges MONUSCO faces in carrying out its mandated tasks are the vast size of DRC and the fact that the government of DRC will accept limited help from MONUSCO in carrying out its elections. According to UN officials, MONUSCO is having some success in addressing instability in eastern DRC. For example, MONUSCO said it receives 300 to 400 calls per month alerting it to attacks and that either MONUSCO or DRC forces respond to 90 percent of these calls. In addition, UN officials told us that the Security Council provided MONUSCO with a budget to use for logistical support for elections assistance, so MONUSCO can readily help the DRC government if and when it asks for assistance.

Key Facts about Haiti Population: Approximately 10.6 million people live in Haiti. More than 50 percent of the population is under the age of 24.

Government: Haiti is a semi- presidential republic.

Economy: Haiti’s estimated gross domestic product for 2017 was $8.36 billion. Haiti continues to rely on international economic assistance for fiscal sustainability, with over 20 percent of its budget coming from foreign aid. In 2010, Haiti’s unemployment rate was estimated to be 40.6 percent, and in 2012, 58.5 percent of its population was estimated to be living below the poverty line.

Timeline of Key Events 1993: Following a military coup, the UN establishes the first of a series of three peacekeeping operations. The last of these operations leaves in 2000. 2004: The UN establishes the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) to help restore and maintain order after the collapse of the government. 2017: The UN establishes MINUJUSTH as a successor to MINUSTAH, composed of police and civilian personnel and focused on institutional strengthening and development.

Current Status and Challenges The United Nations (UN) established MINUJUSTH in 2017 to assist the government of Haiti in strengthening rule-of-law institutions, further support and develop the Haitian National Police, and engage in human rights monitoring, reporting, and analysis. In the resolution establishing MINUJUSTH, the Security Council called on the Secretary-General to develop a 2-year exit strategy with clear benchmarks. The Secretary- General regularly reports on MINUJUSTH’s progress toward reaching its benchmarks. The Security Council resolution extending the MINUJUSTH mandate to April 2019 calls on the Secretary-General to conduct a strategic assessment of the operation by early 2019 and present recommendations on the UN’s future role in Haiti. To facilitate the transition, the UN has created a joint UN Development Program and MINUJUSTH rule-of-law program to continue its work in this area after the peacekeeping operation ends.

According to U.S. and UN officials, Haiti continues to struggle with weak institutions and high levels of government corruption. Moreover, according to MINUJUSTH officials, the process of transitioning from the previous peacekeeping operation in Haiti to MINUJUSTH was challenging because of the level of effort involved in liquidating assets, among other things. These officials told us that similar issues will make the MINUJUSTH transition to a non-peacekeeping UN presence equally challenging.

Key Facts about Kosovo Population: Approximately 1.9 million people live in Kosovo. About 42 percent of the population is under the age of 25. The primary ethnic group is the Albanian Kosovars, making up approximately 93 percent of the population. Other ethnic minorities include Serbs and Bosnians.

Government: Kosovo is a parliamentary republic.

Economy: Kosovo’s estimated gross domestic product in 2017 was an estimated $19.6 billion. Kosovo's economy has achieved some stability, but it is still highly dependent on the international community for financial and technical assistance. Kosovo’s unemployment rate is 33 percent, with a youth (under 26) unemployment rate near 60 percent.

Timeline of Key Events 1991: Kosovo's Albanians declare independence from Serbia. 1998: Multi-year conflict results in large numbers of casualties, refugees, and displaced persons.

Current Status and Challenges The Security Council established UNMIK to provide an interim administration for Kosovo, under which UNMIK had authority over the territory and people of Kosovo, including all legislative and executive powers and administration of the judiciary. Following the declaration of independence by the Kosovo Assembly in June 2008, the tasks of the operation have changed to focus primarily on the promotion of security, stability, and respect for human rights in Kosovo, as well as reducing tensions between Serbia and Kosovo.

1999: A 3-month NATO military operation against Serbia results in the Serbs withdrawing their military and police forces from Kosovo. 1999: UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) places Kosovo under a transitional administration pending a determination of Kosovo's future status.

According to U.S. and United Nations (UN) officials, the greatest challenge UNMIK faces in carrying out its mandate is that the Kosovo government will not engage directly with UNMIK. According to U.S., UN, and Kosovo government officials, the Kosovar government will not engage with UNMIK because it views UNMIK’s mandate as obsolete, given Kosovo’s independence. U.S. officials believe that UNMIK has achieved its mandate and should be closed. However, these officials also noted that Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto, prevents the affirmative decision necessary to close UNMIK.

2008: The Kosovo Assembly declares Kosovo’s independence.

U.S. and UN officials told us that UNMIK has found ways to indirectly assist the Kosovo government, such as by providing funding for government efforts in Kosovo through other UN agencies with which the Kosovo government will engage. For instance, one UN official told us that UNMIK had provided a ground-penetrating radar to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist in efforts to locate missing persons, which will help clarify the fate and whereabouts of people unaccounted for after the conflict with Serbia.

Key Facts about Lebanon Population: Approximately 6.2 million people live in Lebanon. The country is about 27 percent Sunni, 27 percent Shia, and 41 percent Christian. Officially, there are almost 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon.

Government: Lebanon is a parliamentary republic, with a unicameral legislature that elects the president. Currently, 35 of 128 legislative seats are held by the Shia Amal-Hezbollah coalition. Lebanon's borders with Syria and Israel remain unresolved.

Economy: Lebanon’s estimated gross domestic product for 2017 was $52.7 billion, with a real growth rate of 1.5 percent. The growth rate is down from about 7 percent in 2010.

Timeline of Key Events 1975-1990: Sectarian violence leads to the Lebanese civil war. 1978: Israel sends troops into Lebanon.

March 1978: UNIFIL is established to supervise the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. Israeli forces withdraw in 2000.

Current Status and Challenges UNIFIL was created by the Security Council in March 1978 to supervise the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore international peace and security, and assist the government of Lebanon in restoring its authority. In late 2006, following renewed conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the Security Council enhanced UNIFIL’s forces and added additional tasks to its mandate to include monitoring the cessation of hostilities and extending UNIFIL’s assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. The United Nations (UN) reported in March 2018 that the situation in UNIFIL’s area of operations has remained generally calm, but there has been no progress toward implementing a permanent ceasefire.

Early 1980s: Israeli forces in southern Lebanon start facing opposition from a militant group that would become Hezbollah, backed by Iran.

July-August 2006: Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers, sparking a 34-day war with Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calls for a cease-fire between the two sides and supplements UNIFIL’s mandate.

According to U.S. and UN officials, one challenge UNIFIL faces in carrying out its mandate is that Israel and Lebanon have not agreed on a peaceful solution to their conflict. Officials noted that there is no articulated exit strategy for the operation and that the Lebanese Armed Forces lack the capacity to secure the southern border with Israel—a necessary condition for the successful exit of UNIFIL. However, U.S. and UN officials agreed that UNIFIL plays a vital role by deterring further hostilities in southern Lebanon and providing a neutral forum for meetings between Israel and Lebanon.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Elizabeth Repko (Assistant Director), Shirley Min (Analyst in Charge), Julia Jebo Grant, Sarah Amer, Molly Miller, Debbie Chung, Martin de Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Mark Dowling, Michael Rohrback, and Brandon Hunt made contributions to this report.