The United Nation's peacekeeping missions are certainly challenged in a world torn apart by geopolitical tensions.
However, senior officials told the UN Security Council this summer that UN missions remain relevant, according to a UN report by Vibhu Mishra. The officials stated that missions remain a tool for conflict resolution and the protection of civilians worldwide. The UN report said: Under-Secretary-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix and Assistant Secretary-General Marta Pobee briefed the Council on priorities for adapting UN peace operations to foster political solutions. They emphasized the urgent need for the Council and the broader UN membership to overcome divisions and strengthen support for peace operations as unique platforms for advancing diplomacy in conflict zones.
Lacroix pointed to missions that have made notable contributions to peace processes, such as MINUSCA in the Central African Republic, which helped broker the 2019 Political Agreement and launched disarmament efforts, and MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which contributed to a reduction in violence during the 2023 elections. Other missions have supported successful political transitions and implementation of peace agreements, such as the political mission UNMIN in Nepal, where UN engagement aided the peace process and transition to a republic, and in Angola, where the UN supported peace consolidation after decades of civil war.
Lacroix said that political coherence and unity among Security Council members are essential for successful missions. Without strong, united political support, peace operations are limited to managing conflicts and protecting civilians rather than supporting durable peace agreements. He emphasized the importance of regional partnerships, such as the one with the African Union. Resolution 2719 allows assessed contributions for AU-led operations; it was described as a historic milestone in UN-AU collaboration.
Leveraging the investments of troop- and police-contributing countries more purposefully is critical, Lacroix added in the report, citing the example of Pakistan's dual role as a major troop contributor and an elected member of the Security Council. The report also addressed the accomplishments of the UN during the Cold War - diplomatic efforts in Equatorial Guinea in 1969, Bahrain in 1970, and the border dispute between Iraq and Iran in 1974. It identified several key elements behind those successes: clearly focused, time-bound mandates; the proactive use of the Secretary-General's good offices; discreet diplomacy and, crucially, consent from host governments and conflict parties. These cases were usually led by special political missions, which demonstrated how non-military tools of diplomacy can move the world away from war and lay the groundwork for peace.
While Lacroix's story does a good job of documenting the strong points of the UN, it does little to highlight what's wrong with it. The report doesn't understand power. The top powers in the world, the US, followed closely by China, and Russia, are all members of the UN Security Council. Therefore, the UN can do little in the conflict between the powers. The China-Russia orbit seeks to extend its influence, with China threatening Taiwan and Russia invading Ukraine. What's the solution? It's complex because it's hard to know where history will take us in the coming years. Should we be open to diplomatic moves with the China-Russia orbit? Of course. Remember the above-mentioned UN victories in the first Cold War. Should the world's main powers try to avoid conflict? Of course, the US and its allies made it through Cold War I without a direct confrontation with Soviet Russia and its allies.
The Russia-China orbit, defined by authoritarian powers, has an ideological bent. It doesn't like talk of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights because their countries' power is threatened by people in their countries who advocate for such things, and those advocates draw strength from countries that have historically stood for such things, as stated by writer Anne Applebaum in her book Autocracy Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Rule the World. Of course, authoritarian movements exist in democratic countries that threaten democratic norms. We're witnessing an authoritarian government in the US now.
Will democratic ways mentioned prevail? Let's hope they do, because if those norms prevail, a world defined by the rule of law could emerge. Perhaps the three biggest powers in the world could police their respective spheres, and no other country would be allowed a bigger weapon than a rifle, as was the original plan of the UN in the 1940s. Each large power could spend less on defense because theres no need to balance each other. In addition, the powers could cooperate to eliminate nuclear weapons and other dangerous arms. How do we arrive at our destination? It will require some improvisation, but let's hope we can find a way forward somehow. Our future depends on it.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
