{
  "id": "97-454",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-454",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 316319,
      "date": "1997-04-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:59:03.813941",
      "title": "Peacekeeping Options: Considerations for U.S. Policymakers and the Congress",
      "summary": "This document also available in  PDF Image .\n  As recent international efforts to quell instability in many troubled nations have reached mixed\nor ambiguous outcomes, many Members of Congress wish to reexamine the tools available to the\nUnited States to address the problem. Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has been the\nworld's primary instrument for international response to instability and for international efforts to\nachieve peace. But the 1990s expansion of U.N. peacekeeping activities, both in number and in\nscope, resulted in some operations which were perceived as mismanaged, ineffective, and costly. \nConcerned about the U.N.'s ability to carry out such operations effectively, many policymakers have\nbegun to explore the possibilities of strengthening the United Nations or employing other\norganizations to help achieve peace. \n  In recent years, the United Nations, non-governmental and humanitarian organizations (NGOs),\nand regional organizations have increasingly supplemented each other's peace and security activities. \nThe United States, and other nations, have organized \"ad hoc\" multilateral groups or coalitions\n(organized under the U.N. or regional aegis) when greater flexibility or speed of action was desired.\nWithin the last few years, commercial firms contracted by the United States have also been brought\ninto peace operations. \n  While these public, private, and \"ad hoc\" organizations all play a role in peace operations, the\nUnited Nations is uniquely active along the entire \"conflict\" continuum, from situations of potential\nhostilities to post-conflict situations. Except for a few in Europe, regional organizations are largely\nunequipped, structurally and financially, to effectively perform a wide variety of peace operations. \n(Regional organizations in Europe currently play a larger part in conflictive and other problem\nsituations than regional organizations elsewhere.) NGOs have tended to concentrate on prevention\nactivities, refugee resettlement, and post-conflict development. Private firms have been used to\nsupplement U.S. and U.N. personnel in a few recent operations. \n  Most analysts would conclude that containing conflict at the lowest possible level is most\ncost-effective, but the  relative  costs and effectiveness of using these different\norganizations appear\nstill unclear. A wide variety of circumstances can influence whether an organization is appropriate\nto use and able to prevent, contain or settle a conflict. No one organization or type of organization\nis seen as capable of providing, by itself, the necessary coverage in all situations. There are\nimplications for U.S. interests, for the budget, for U.S. diplomacy, and for the U.S. military in the\nuse and mix of each of these types of organization.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-454",
          "sha1": "c590d22acf122f669b99ee71e48b2d796c7b1a2f",
          "filename": "files/19970410_97-454_c590d22acf122f669b99ee71e48b2d796c7b1a2f.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19970410_97-454_c590d22acf122f669b99ee71e48b2d796c7b1a2f.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}