19 March 2025, NIICE Commentary 10006
Naziba Mustabshira
In 1994, United Nations (UN) peacekeepers posted to Rwanda looked the other way as one of history’s worst genocides played out. At least 800,000 people were killed and the impotence of the UN became a defining symbol of its shortcomings. Today, the same concerns persist. Missions in Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) suffer from chronic underfunding, weak mandates, and waning political support.
For decades, UN peacekeeping has been a bedrock of global stability, helping to end wars, protecting civilians, and rebuilding fragile states on the ground. But it is struggling now under financial pressure, widening geopolitical divisions and a series of operational failures. As the powerful nations that historically propped them up pull back support and as regional alternatives arise, the question hangs: What happens when UN peacekeeping falls?
The Gradual Unravelling of UN Peacekeeping
Great Power Apathy and Political Neglect
UN peacekeeping was premised in part on international cooperation, but that means is collapsing as great power turns inward. On top of that, the United States, the biggest financial backer of the program, has been repeatedly cutting funding, decrying inefficiency and prioritizing domestic goals. China, the second-largest contributor, views peacekeeping as a means of expanding influence, not as a global public good. But while the US has been an indispensable partner in mediating conflicts, outlining red lines and even sending peacekeeping troops where necessary, Russia’s own strategic interests take precedence over multilateral stability; it has a history of blocking more robust peacekeeping mandates at the U.N. Security Council.
Financial Constraints
Peacekeeping operations cost money, and at the moment, they do not have enough of it. The budget for peacekeeping at the UN has been shrinking for years, with missions operating under severe financial constraints. The US alone has withdrawn hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, and other countries have been slow to fill the gap. The result is a direct diminishing of operations — fewer soldiers, outdated equipment and insufficient resources to pursue meaningful conflict resolution.
In some instances, financial shortfalls have caused missions to miss payroll for troops, sapping morale and effectiveness. Countries that provide peacekeepers, typically from the Global South, are often left to shoulder the burden without adequate assistance. In the absence of sustainable funding, peacekeeping dies the death of a thousand cuts, as it transforms from a body of robust missions deployed to guarantee stability to a series of ‘symbolic’ deployments.
The consequences are devastating. The UN declaring genocide in Rwanda (1994) and failing to stop the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia (1995) are some well-known examples. More recently, the missions in Mali and the CAR have suffered because of poor planning and weak mandates that make it impossible for them to protect civilians.
Why the World Should Care?
More Wars, Less Stability
A number of UN-administered missions — in places like Mali, the DRC and South Sudan — exist because there was no other viable detachment capable of helping stop violence from getting worse. Without peacekeepers, power vacuums will expand, armed groups will spread, and civilian casualties will increase.
For fragile states, a weakened UN means fewer tools to help stabilize post-conflict societies. Where peacekeepers once aided in negotiating cease-fires and monitoring elections, there will be few checks on warlords, militias and authoritarian regimes from taking advantage of the chaos. The result is inviting more human suffering, more refugees fleeing violence, and an increasing number of failed states.
Emergence of Alternative Security Forces
With the UN losing credibility, other actors are trying to fill the void — and the risks are high. Regional organizations such as the African Union (AU), NATO, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have stepped up peacekeeping, but with different priorities and limited capacities. While the UN seeks neutrality, however, regional forces may be influenced by the respective political pressures of their home governments in ways that can increase regional tensions rather than alleviate them.
A less-explored but more ominous trend is the growth of private military contractors and mercenary outfits, like Russia’s Wagner Group. These forces work with far less accountability than UN peacekeepers, and their presence often exacerbates human rights abuses. Should peacekeeping be privatized, there won't be profit in peace, causing only a war or intervention will be far better than peace.
What Needs to Change?
More Robust and Flexible Mandates
Most peacekeeping missions are constrained by mandates that prohibit troops from taking decisive action, even when civilians are threatened. In countries such as Mali and the CAR, peacekeepers are present but unable to sufficiently respond to armed groups, reducing their presence to a symbolic rather than kinetic one. To amend this, the UN must introduce robust and adaptable mandates enabling peacekeepers to respond to a modern battlefield in which insurgents and extremist groups do not abide by ceasefires. Peacekeeping forces also should be better trained and equipped to fight asymmetric warfare, counter-terrorism and local power struggle, without getting bogged down in bureaucratic constraints.
Accountability and Trust Building
For peacekeeping to be successful, local populations need to trust the mission. But scandals of sexual abuse, corruption and misconduct have deeply eroded that trust. The UN must take zero-tolerance policies on misconduct seriously, with rapid, transparent investigations, clear consequences and greater involvement of independent oversight bodies if it still wants to be seen as credible. Local engagement is also critical as a priority. Rather than functioning as foreign entities in distant lands, peacekeepers must have close contact with communities and support local governance, security reform and dispute resolution processes.
Fairer Burden-Sharing
Developing nations such as Bangladesh, Rwanda and Nepal contribute thousands of troops, while major powers such as the U.S. and European nations have concentrated on paying — if not deploying — large numbers of troops. This imbalance results in a disconnect between decision-making and risk-taking in which the individuals who formulate peacekeeping policies seldom incur the costs on the ground. A fairer system of contributions is required under which richer nations shoulder a bigger share of not just monetary contributions, but personnel commitments as well.
Bringing Back Political Will and Global Cooperation
Peacekeeping will not be improved until world leaders decide it should be. For missions to be properly funded, strategically deployed, and authorized to act when appropriate, the UN needs strong political backup from its most powerful members, particularly the US, China, and the EU.
This means a recommitment to multilateralism by making international peace and security a global concern, rather than merely an issue for the most affected regions. Yet without political will, no reform will amount to more than rhetoric. If the world wishes to stave off more wars, preserve civilians and keep the world from spinning out of control, it must invest in peacekeeping before it wholly fails. The other — more wars, failed states and human suffering — is not a choice to be afforded.
As the UN is to remain a pillar of international security, peacekeeping needs to be treated as a global priority, not an afterthought. The decision is unequivocal: reinvest in peacekeeping or resign yourself to a future in which conflict and instability become the order of the day.
Naziba Mustabshira is a Research Intern at NIICE and also a third-year student in International Relations at the Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP).
