Between January 1999 and May 2000, the U.N. Security Council adopted 10 resolutions authorizing new peacekeeping operations or significantly expanding existing ones, including 8 resolutions for operations in East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Table 1 lists the eight decisions and the dates respectively of the executive branch decisions to support the operations, the letters informing the Congress of these decisions, and the U.N. Security Council votes. The U.N. and multilateral operations in these three locations were undertaken to help resolve long-standing internal conflicts. The estimated cost of the ongoing U.N. operations in these locations represented over half of the $2.7 billion estimated cost of U.N peacekeeping operations in 2001. Although peace agreements or cease-fires had been reached or were imminent in these three locations, violence continued and the political accords appeared tenuous. The following paragraphs briefly describe the situations in these three locations to provide some context for the eight executive branch decisions. Appendix III provides additional information about key events related to these decisions. Since 1975, when Indonesia forcibly incorporated East Timor, the United States had supported some form of self-determination for the former Portuguese colony with a population of about 800,000 people. In 1983, Portugal and Indonesia began regular talks aimed at resolving East Timor’s status; in June 1998, Indonesia agreed to enter U.N.-mediated talks about autonomy for East Timor. In January 1999, Indonesia’s President announced his support for offering the people of East Timor a choice between autonomy within Indonesia or independence. On May 5, 1999, Indonesia and Portugal concluded a general agreement that, among other things, called for the establishment of a U.N. operation to conduct a free and fair vote for the people of East Timor to choose the territory’s future status—either autonomy within Indonesia or independence. Despite this agreement, pro-autonomy factions, supported by local militia and the Indonesian military, attempted to use violence to intimidate pro- independence factions and influence the outcome of the vote. There also was uncertainty about the Indonesian security forces’ willingness to allow a free and fair vote. The conflict in Sierra Leone began in 1991, when rebel forces (the Revolutionary United Front) began attacking government forces near the Liberian border. Sierra Leone’s army at first tried to defend the government with the support of military forces provided by the Economic Community of West African States, but the army itself overthrew the government in 1992. Despite the change of power, the rebel forces continued their attacks. The army relinquished power in 1996 after parliamentary and presidential elections. Rebel forces, however, did not participate in the elections and did not recognize the results. A November 1996 peace agreement between the government and the rebels (the Abidjan Accord) was derailed by another military coup d’état in May 1997. This time the army joined forces with the rebels to form a ruling junta and the elected government was forced into exile in Guinea. In February 1998, the West African military forces launched an attack that led to the collapse of the junta and the restoration of the elected government. In July 1998, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone to monitor the situation and help the combatants reach an overall peace agreement. In July 1999, the combatants signed the Lomé Peace Agreement, under which U.N. and West African peacekeeping forces would share in helping to provide security and disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate the combatants. During the 8 years of fighting, an estimated 500,000 Sierra Leone citizens were forced to flee to neighboring Guinea, Liberia, Gambia, and other locations. Of the estimated 6 million people remaining in Sierra Leone, 2.6 million could not be reached by humanitarian agencies and 370,000 were internally displaced. These populations suffered severe human rights abuses, including mutilations, amputations, summary executions, torture, and sexual abuse. The Congo conflict grew out of the instability that followed the Rwandan crisis of 1994 and eventually involved the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and five regional states, several Congolese rebel groups, and groups responsible for the Rwandan genocide. According to a U.N. report, this conflict was “characterized by appalling, widespread and systematic human rights violations, including mass killings, ethnic cleansing, rape and destruction of property” and its effects had “spread beyond the subregion to afflict the continent of Africa as a whole.” In August 1998, the Southern Africa Development Community and the Organization for African Unity announced the start of a regional initiative to negotiate an end to the Congo conflict. On July 10, 1999, six states signed the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement and 5 days later, on July 15, the U.N. Secretary General proposed establishing a U.N. operation to help monitor implementation of the cease-fire agreement. Directive 25 stated that U.S. and U.N. involvement in peacekeeping must be both selective and effective. This principle was underscored by the 1996 U.S. National Security Strategy Report, which stated that “the United States must make highly disciplined choices about when and under what circumstances to support” peacekeeping operations and directed officials to “undertake a rigorous assessment of requirements before voting to support operations.” To this end, Directive 25 required executive branch decision-makers to consider specific factors in deciding whether to support a proposed operation. These factors included questions about a proposed operation’s (1) political context, such as whether it advanced U.S. interests and the consequences of inaction were judged unacceptable, and (2) feasibility, such as whether it had appropriate forces, financing, and mandate to accomplish its mission and its anticipated duration was tied to clear objectives and realistic exit criteria. Directive 25 established these factors to help executive branch officials identify proposed operations’ basic political, military, and resource shortfalls but did not require that all or any particular factors be present in a proposed operation before it was approved. The directive stated that decisions would be based on the cumulative weight of the factors, with no single factor being an absolute determinant. However, the directive also stated that the United States generally would support only well-defined peace operations linked to concrete political solutions. Executive branch officials extensively considered all Directive 25 factors before deciding to support the authorization or expansion of the U.N. operations. Executive branch assessments of proposed operations identified concerns about some directive factors and shortfalls in others. Executive branch officials decided to support the operations because most factors were present and, in their judgment, U.S. interests were advanced by supporting regional allies, creating or maintaining regional stability, or addressing humanitarian disasters. Following interagency deliberations, senior executive branch officials directed State and Defense officials to strengthen the proposed operations before the U.N. Security Council voted or to develop plans to address the risks that the shortfalls posed. For the eight decisions, we found that the executive branch used a systematic process that resulted in a full consideration of all Directive 25 factors. The process for making these decisions involved the consideration of Directive 25 at the following three levels: Individual agencies. The State and Defense Departments and the National Security Council were the primary agencies that assessed the proposed operations. Individual agency deliberations included relevant regional, functional, legal, and legislative affairs experts. Peacekeeping Core Group. This interagency working group, chaired by the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs, was comprised of assistant and deputy assistant secretaries of State, Defense, and other U.S. departments and agencies. The core group brought together the individual agency assessments and developed consensus recommendations for senior decision-makers for each of the eight decisions. Deputies Committee. This interagency decision-making group, chaired by the Deputy Adviser to the President for National Security Affairs or his designee, was typically comprised of the undersecretaries of State and Defense and similar officials from other agencies. For these eight decisions, the Deputies Committee made the final decision to vote for the proposed operation. Interactions between these three levels were iterative and supported by extensive intelligence reporting. Figure 1 illustrates the process used to make these eight decisions. For the eight decisions we reviewed, we found that executive officials prepared and reviewed hundreds of records considering all applicable Directive 25 factors before deciding to support the proposed operations. These records included decision memorandums, situation assessments, concept papers, and summaries of interagency discussions. For five of the eight decisions, the State Department prepared comprehensive Directive 25 analyses that candidly assessed the proposed operations, including identifying basic political, military, and resource shortfalls. Analysis of these records showed that executive branch officials considered all applicable Directive 25 factors before making their decisions. Before the late May 1999 decision to support the U.N. Mission in East Timor, for example, executive branch officials prepared 19 assessments of the proposed operation, including a comprehensive Directive 25 analysis. These assessments considered all applicable Directive 25 factors, for example, whether (1) there was support among U.N. member states for U.N. action in Indonesia and (2) the parties consented to the deployment of a U.N. force. Before the August 1999 decision to support the expansion of the U.N. Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, executive branch officials prepared 16 assessments of the proposed operation, including a comprehensive Directive 25 analysis. These assessments considered all applicable Directive 25 factors, for example, whether the expanded operation had adequate financing and forces to carry out its mission. In making all eight decisions, executive branch officials also considered assessments provided by other governments, the U.N. Secretariat, diplomatic envoys and negotiators, regional organizations, and others operating in the areas of concern.