In the course of debate surrounding the International Criminal Court, the United States threatened to use its veto power in the UN Security Council to block the continuation of the Bosnia mandate beyond the July 3rd deadline. Earlier in the week, Washington had warned the international body, that it would remove its personnel from the mission if its soldiers were not granted judicial immunity from newly established ICC.

At the last moment, however, the 15 member Security Council managed to extend the deadline for the vote until July 15. In the meantime, the fate of the Bosnia mission hangs in balance as international talks continue to focus on persuading the US to stick with the mission and others like it.

Dispute over Bosnia

Set up in 1995, the UN Bosnia mission is an international police task force, for which more than 1,500 police officers and 1,700 civilians have been sent to the region. Their task is to maintain law enforcement, coordinate humanitarian relief, aid refugees, oversee elections and help rebuild the country’s destroyed infrastructure.

The United States is represented in Bosnia by a mini-contingent of only 46 people. And yet its threat to back out of the mandate has met with a disproportionately loud and resounding cry of concern from the international community.

European leaders have been especially outspoken in their criticism of the US. They fear that the American veto of Bosnia and its insistence on legal immunity for soldiers participating in the mission could be indicative of the way Washington will respond to other UN peacekeeping missions.

Such a stance would threaten to "damage the authority of the United Nations," said Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency, emphasized the need to find a "satisfactory solution that does not harm the integrity of the ICC and which allows for the continuation of UN peacekeeping operations and preserves the US engagement in them."

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned the US against putting the entire peacekeeping system at risk over what he said were "exaggerated US fears of vulnerability to the new ICC".

The dispute over Bosnia is likely to expand to other UN peacekeeping missions. In the upcoming days and weeks, the future of four more UN peacekeeping missions will come up for voting in the Security Council: Georgia, Lebanon, West-Sahara and the region of Prevlaka, which is claimed by both Croatia and Montenegro. In each case, the US is either directly involved with personnel or has contributed financially to the mission.

Prevlaka

In addition to the Bosnia and Kosovo missions in the Balkans, the UN also has a peacekeeping mandate for the Prevlaka Peninsula. It was established in 1996 to monitor a cease-fire between Croatia and Montenegro, which have been fighting for possession of the region since the former Yugoslavia began breaking up in the early 1990s.

There are 27 military observers stationed in Prevlaka, but no Americans. The cost for the mission is $143 million. On July 15, the Security Council will vote on whether or not to extend the mission.

Lebanon

In 1978, after Israel’s military invasion and occupation of Lebanon, the UN Security Council called for the establishment of an international peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon. The mission has been active in the region ever since. The troops are responsible for verifying Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and monitoring the peaceful transition to Lebanese self-government in the region. Given the current situation in the Middle East, the mission is one of the more volatile ones, and the political situation is still uncertain. Since the mission began, there have been 245 fatalities.

Approximately 3,600 uniformed troops, 50 military observers an 120 international civilians are involved in the mission. No Americans are participating. The annual cost for maintaining the peacekeepers is $143. On July 31, the Security Council will convene for a vote on the future of the mission.

Georgia

UN peacekeepers have been stationed in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia since 1993. They are primarily responsible for patrolling the territory fought over by government and separatist forces. There have been seven fatalities in the last nine years.

108 military observers and 96 international civilians are involved in the mission. The US has sent two observers. The annual budget is 27.9 million. On July 31, the Security Council will vote on the mission’s extension.

Western Sahara

The United Nations has been seeking a peaceful solution to the territorial conflict over Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the territory and the Polisario front, which is supported by Algeria. In 1991, the Security Council voted to send peacekeepers to the region to monitor the cease-fire between Morocco and the Polisario separatists.

There are 255 uniformed troops, 204 military observers and 173 international civilians stationed in the region. 10 UN personnel have been killed since the mission began. The annual cost is $50.5 million. The Security Council will vote on the mission’s extension on July 31.

Few troops, big monetary contributions

Compared to the other 86 countries involved in UN peacekeeping missions, the US sends very few personnel. Of the 45,145 UN peacekeepers stationed worldwide, only 704 are American. Of these, 670 are civilian police, and the majority are stationed on the Balkans.

In total, the US personnel contribution constitutes only three percent of the overall UN peacekeeping contingent. This is far less than countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, which contribute 5,479 and 4,831 peacekeepers respectively.

But when it comes to financial support, the US far outdoes the rest of the UN members. America pays for more than one third of the UN’s peacekeeping expenses ($2.77 billion for 2001-2002).

For this reason, the international community is concerned about that the dispute over Bosnia could expand to include other upcoming missions. A US veto could jeopardize the future of the peacekeeping missions, if not in terms of personnel, than financially. And the stability in the regions protected by the peacekeepers would be at risk.