The Hard Questions Will Keep On Coming : House throws U.N. peacekeeping, and Clinton, a scare

America can’t escape its responsibilities in the world and shouldn’t try. And tying the President’s hands on foreign policy is definitely not in the national interest. That’s not happening yet, but Congress is increasingly unhappy about the burgeoning of U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping missions and the American role in them. It has now taken a chain saw to the Clinton Administration’s peacekeeping budget to emphasize its displeasure. And that’s highly significant.

The House has slashed requested funds for humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in the fiscal year that began Friday by $300 million, leaving only about $38 million for the program. Much, maybe all, of the money that was cut could and certainly should be restored later. But the congressional mood suggests that the Administration will have to make a much stronger case than it has so far if it wants the funds returned.

IRRITATIONS: At least three identifiable irritations prompted the budget gutting in the House. The first and most important is frustration over Somalia, where 1,300 elite U.S. combat troops, along with other forces contributed by U.N. members, have been unable to capture a local warlord or halt attacks by his forces. A second is reaction against a draft plan by the Administration to place some U.S. forces under foreign command in future U.N. operations. The Administration, shaken by congressional negativism to this notion, is now said to be rethinking its approach. Finally, Congress is uneasy about giving advance approval to funding what could turn out to be open-ended peacekeeping missions of unknown cost and duration.

President Clinton sought to deal with some of these concerns in his address to the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week. The House vote four days later shows that he fell short. The Administration, meanwhile, finds itself under countervailing pressure from U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali to stay deeply involved in peacekeeping efforts at least in Somalia, where, he warns, the withdrawal of U.S. forces would lead to the mission’s collapse.

In fact, that mission is already in deep trouble with all of the countries that are taking part in it. A U.S. pullout probably would start a stampede to the exit. At the same time the feeling is growing that the pacification that is now being attempted in anarchic Somalia has become difficult and thankless. Boutros Ghali worries, perhaps too much in this case, that U.N. prestige may be at risk. Contributors to the Somalia operation worry more that it is the lives of their soldiers that are imperiled.

INTERVENTIONS: One soured peacekeeping mission should not, however, doom all such missions. Though the United Nations has become overextended in global interventions--three years ago it had 10,000 peacekeepers in the field, now it has 80,000--it remains an indispensable agency for organizing international intervention. But the United Nations must become more selective in what it tries to do. It must not allow its reach to exceed its grasp.

This is not to argue that Congress has the right to micro-manage foreign policy. But it does have a right to ask tough questions on behalf of the American people. The President--any President--had better be prepared to answer them.

Even so, a U.S. leadership role is crucial in peacekeeping missions, if not in every case as a direct participant then certainly in encouraging others to take constructive roles. The nature of those missions can’t be known in advance, which is why it’s essential that the President retain the discretion and flexibility in taking action that has historically been his. Political good sense does require the President to consult Congress fully whenever U.S. troops are committed abroad; Congress should always have some clear sense of what all military missions entail. The penalty for not doing that, as this week’s House vote showed, can be heavy.