{
  "id": "95-787",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "95-787",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100559,
      "date": "1995-06-29",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T21:03:32.115941",
      "title": "A U.N. Rapid Reaction Force? A Discussion of the Issues and Considerations for U.S. Policymakers",
      "summary": "U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali recently called for Member States to consider\ncreating a special U.N. force for U.N. peacekeeping operations. In\n a January 1995 report he proposed that the U.N. consider establishing a \"strategic reserve\" rapid\nreaction force (RRF), perhaps of battalion-sized units, to deploy when emergency needs for\npeacekeeping troops arise. They would be stationed in their home countries, but would be trained to\nthe standards, use the same operating procedures and equipment, participate in regular joint exercises,\nand otherwise be maintained at a high state of readiness in order to respond quickly to a U.N. call\nfor their deployment.\n  \n  Although proposals for a U.N. force dedicated to peace operations were made\n by former presidents Bush and Reagan, and by presidential candidate William J. Clinton, the\nClinton\nAdministration backed away from the concept. In its May 1994 Presidential Decision Directive 25\n(PDD-25), the Administration stated that the United States \"does not support a standing U.N. \narmy...\" The Clinton Administration supported, however, the establishment of the U.N. Standby\nForces system, through which Member States formally commit individuals and units to be provided\nwithin a specified period of a U.N. request for peacekeeping assistance, in order to enable the U.N.\nto structure peacekeeping forces more effectively. (The United States has not \"earmarked\" troops\nin advance for the system, but has provided a list of specific military capabilities that could be made\navailable for peacekeeping operations.) \n  The Secretary-General's RRF proposal raises many concerns among U.N. Member States,\nparticularly whether it is politically desirable and financially feasible. A February 1995 consensus\nstatement of the U.N. Security Council on the Secretary-General's report did not specifically mention\nthe rapid reaction force proposal. It stressed the \"importance of improving the capacity of the U.N.\nfor rapid deployment and reinforcement of operations,\" and stated that the first priority \"should be\nthe further enhancement of the existing standby arrangements....\"\n  \n  There are many factors -- and problems -- to be considered in creating an effective \"on-call\"\nrapid reaction force. Among these are how to provide effective command and control, intelligence\ncollection and processing, and adequate, cost-effective logistics support. For the United States, there\nare broad strategic, budgetary, political, and military implications, as well. The Clinton Administration\nhas opposed the idea of a RRF because it would reduce the flexibility of U.S. strategic planning, and\ncould compromise the United States' ability to respond to other crises. The United States might be\ncalled upon to bear a significant part of the cost of maintaining a RRF, which could be high, but must\nbe weighed against savings that might accrue from have a force to deploy before conflict escalates\nand becomes more costly to contain. Among the domestic political considerations of establishing an\nRRF is the possible reduction of congressional and other domestic input into the decision-making\nprocess on peacekeeping operations. Among the issues for the U.S. military is whether the U.N.\nwould rely on the United States' unique lift capabilities to deploy the RRF.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/95-787",
          "sha1": "cc2ff7497ff1e76effd966287a6f32b9ea305f56",
          "filename": "files/19950629_95-787_cc2ff7497ff1e76effd966287a6f32b9ea305f56.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19950629_95-787_cc2ff7497ff1e76effd966287a6f32b9ea305f56.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}