The .2 percent non-solution.

Not long ago, a leading newspaper described the United Nations as a "huge paper mill" that cranks out reports "that hardly anybody ever reads." Such criticism falls on fertile ground, particularly among Americans, who have long tended to regard the U.N. as a bloated bureaucracy. General misgivings about the world organization now increasingly carry over to its peacekeeping operations as well. The misgivings are understandable, considering the great difficulties U.N. troops have had in Somalia and Bosnia.

Some critics interpret these difficulties to mean U.N. peacekeeping just won't work. But these critics may have second thoughts after considering a seven-page report by U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, published last November--one of those documents that "hardly anybody reads." The report strongly suggests that if the Blue Helmets have struggled, it is not because the system has failed, but because the member nations have sent them into the field without providing the support everyone agreed they would need.

The report recounts that in January 1993, recognizing the need for a stronger capability to respond quickly to emergencies, the U.N. members established a Peacekeeping Reserve Fund of $150 million to cover start-up costs of new missions--not a bad idea, considering that the U.N. has been called on to initiate 25 missions since 1988. Dispatching the Blue Helmets and their equipment in a timely manner can make the difference between success and failure. But as of last October, notes the report, only $300,000--or .2 percent of the budget amount--was available. How could this have happened?

According to the report, the Peacekeeping Reserve Fund never got more than 43 percent of its bare-bones allocation to begin with, because a number of the member nations had failed to pay their dues. Then, most of that 43 percent had to be used to meet severe cash shortages of ongoing peacekeeping operations--deficits again caused by many members paying their dues late or only in part. By January 31, when contributions for 1994 were due, total peacekeeping arrears stood at $1.4 billion. Arrears on the regular U.N. budget, meanwhile, stood at another $1.3 billion. The biggest deadbeats have been Russia and the United States.

What makes this story even sadder is that even if the authorized Reserve Fund were fully available, it would still be a pathetically small amount--no more than the member nations spend for their own armies every two hours. And that points to a larger story: that political rhetoric aside, the member governments talk a lot about the U.N., but don't really give it a chance. They ask their much-publicized Blue Helmets to do a great deal, but their spending patterns tell the real story: for every $1 spent on U.N. peacekeeping overall, the world's governments spend more than $200 on their own military forces. No wonder the Blue Helmets sometimes look overwhelmed in the field.

The phenomenal rise in U.N. peacekeeping masks a disturbing lack of vision among member nations, who continue to spend heavily on individual defense systems they can ill afford, while starving the multilateral security system they all agreed to support. Now that peacekeeping operations have--somewhat predictably--run into difficulties, governments are drawing back from, rather than bolstering, the U.N. A precious opportunity to redirect the course of human development may be lost.