The central theme of the discussions in New York was UN peacekeeping operations, particularly the proposed mission to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan.  “It was clear that the UN is preparing to move forward in Sudan, but there is still work to be done to transform that plan into reality” said Delahunt, “At the same time it was clear that the US Congress had to signal its full support for such an effort.”

Yet on Wednesday, June 28, hard-line Republicans in the House of Representatives sought to limit US financial contributions to UN peacekeeping operations, potentially endangering the Darfur mission.  “Ironically,” said Delahunt, “their proposal would not only have jeopardized the UN’s peacekeeping abilities – it would have cost US taxpayers significantly more than we pay now to support UN missions.”  Delahunt’s prepared statement for the debate explains why:

Mr. Speaker,

This amendment could cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.  Maybe that’s not a concern.  Because this Administration and this Congress have shown a willingness to borrow and spend and force us ever deeper into debt.  Even when it means borrowing from OPEC, and Japan, and Korea, and even Communist China.  Of the $1.18 trillion increase in the national debt since the Bush Administration began, $1.16 trillion of it is held by foreign countries.  So I presume the premise of this amendment is that there’s no problem in owing the Red Chinese a few billion more.

The current UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti illustrates this point.  Right now American taxpayers contribute $116 million for the UN force, which totals $428 million.  The non-partisan Government Accountability Office determined that the cost for a US-only mission could be anywhere from $876 million to $1.4 billion.  A cost to be borne exclusively by the American taxpayer.  Much like we are doing in Iraq today.

Don’t take my word for it: Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld himself said the following: "A recent Government Accountability Office study found that if the United States had had to conduct the Haiti mission on our own, without the major help of other nations, it would have cost the US taxpayers almost eight times as much in dollars, to say nothing of the added stress on our forces."

The fact is that if the UN wasn’t in Haiti, we’d have to be there.  If the UN wasn’t preparing a force in Darfur, we might have to take part.  If the UN wasn’t stopping the war in Congo from destabilizing central Africa, we might have to do it.  To put it bluntly, the UN is an inexpensive way of taking care of our national interests.  That frees up our military for other missions.  And prevents American soldiers from being killed.  But this amendment could force us to do it alone.

And of course, if we did it by ourselves, the mission would consist entirely of US troops.  So the American military would be doing the policing.  And the fighting.  And the shedding of blood.  Some of it their own.

Because peacekeeping missions are under constant attack.  Peacekeepers die.  UN personnel die.  It doesn’t make the news here, because they’re not Americans.  But peacekeeping is dangerous work.  So it’s not just American dollars at risk from this amendment.  It’s American lives.

Before debate could fully begin on the Republican proposal, it was withdrawn after floor managers raised a procedural objection.  However, Delahunt expects such efforts to appear on other occasions, because, he said, “There are some in Congress who are determined to destroy the UN.  But I’m just as determined to defend it – because doing so saves the money of American taxpayers and the lives of American soldiers.”

A copy of the GAO report referenced in Congressman Delahunt’s statement can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06331.pdf, or made available upon request.

-30-