Last month, four candidates vying to be the next UN Secretary-General made a strikingly similar point before the UN General Assembly. The UN, they argued, needs to return to the practical work of peacemaking: not as an abstract commitment, but as the effort of bringing warring parties together and keeping them engaged over time.
This convergence is not accidental. It reflects a broader shift in the environment in which the UN operates, defined by financial constraints, geopolitical fragmentation and a growing willingness among major powers to bypass multilateral frameworks. Taken together, these pressures are forcing a reconsideration not only of what the UN does, but what role it can realistically play.
Nowhere is this reassessment more urgent than in the future of UN peacekeeping. If it is to remain relevant, peacekeeping must adapt to an era defined by quick, fragile deals. A review of all forms of UN peace operations currently underway provides the perfect opportunity to chart a new course.
For decades, peacekeeping was the UN’s most visible instrument: large, multidimensional missions deployed to stabilize fragile States, protect civilians and support political transitions. That model is now under intense strain. Budgets are tightening amid a liquidity crisis. Political consensus in the Security Council is scarce. Host governments are pushing back, sometimes expelling missions outright. Several major operations are winding down, marking a clear contraction of the UN’s traditional footprint.
A sidelined UN?
At the same time, the centre of gravity in global peacemaking is shifting away from the UN. Over the past year, a series of high-profile agreements brokered under US leadership have produced ceasefires or short-term de-escalation across multiple conflicts. In most of these efforts, the UN has not featured at all.
These trends are connected. Financial scarcity is narrowing the UN’s reach just as major powers pursue faster, more transactional diplomacy. The result is a paradox: even as the demand for sustained peacemaking grows, the institutional machinery historically associated with it is being sidelined.
These trends are connected. Financial scarcity is narrowing the UN’s reach just as major powers pursue faster, more transactional diplomacy. The result is a paradox: even as the demand for sustained peacemaking grows, the institutional machinery historically associated with it is being sidelined.
The renewed emphasis on peacemaking from Secretary-General candidates should therefore be read as more than rhetorical. It is an attempt to restore relevance to an organization facing decline. The key question is what this shift back to basics would mean in practice.
One implication is a redefinition of the principal role of UN peace operations.
For this, we need not wait for the next Secretary-General. A forthcoming report of the Secretary General, presenting the findings of a review of all forms of UN peace operations requested by Member States in the Pact for the Future, provides a good opportunity to do just this. While the report is likely to parrot the current debate treating the decline of large-scale peacekeeping as a loss to be managed, it could instead present a more forward-looking idea: that peace operations should be reoriented toward political objectives, with peacemaking at their core.
A reorientation of peace operations
Taken seriously, this requires a shift in perspective. Missions would no longer be seen primarily as security providers or State-building tools, but as mechanisms for sustaining peace processes: supporting the slow, often invisible work that occurs before, during and after agreements.
The recent wave of deal-driven diplomacy highlights why this matters. Bilateral agreements can halt violence quickly. They are flexible and often backed by leverage, but they are rarely designed to endure. Without mechanisms to keep parties engaged through fragile moments, the risk of collapse and renewed violence remains high. Look at eastern Congo, which relapsed into fighting only days after the US deal, or the stutter-step attempts to hold ceasefires together in Lebanon and Iran this week.
This is where UN peace operations retain a comparative advantage.
Unlike ad hoc diplomatic efforts, UN missions are structured for continuity. They provide a platform for sustained engagement beyond initial agreements. They offer monitoring and verification mechanisms that reduce mistrust and deter violations. They create channels for resolving disputes before they escalate. And because they are collectively funded and mandated, they distribute both financial burden and political risk.
Unlike ad hoc diplomatic efforts, UN missions are structured for continuity. They provide a platform for sustained engagement beyond initial agreements.
These functions are not new. Even at the height of large-scale peacekeeping, UN missions supported negotiations, facilitated implementation, and helped prevent relapse into conflict. What is new is the context and the need to elevate these roles from supporting functions to central objectives. Rather than focusing on broad State-building or security provision, peace operations could be recast as tools for keeping parties engaged in dialogue.
A more flexible, adaptable approach
This shift aligns with another strength of the UN: its ability to operate across a spectrum of engagement. At one end are small political missions focused on mediation. At the other are large operations with significant security components. Between these poles lies a flexible range of options that can be adapted to changing conditions.
In an era of constrained resources and fluid conflicts, this flexibility is an asset. Large, static deployments are increasingly difficult to sustain. Smaller, more agile presences tied to clear political strategies are often better suited to maintaining dialogue and supporting incremental progress. The future is likely not a return to expansive missions, but a diversification of lighter, more targeted engagement.
There are trade-offs. Scaling back reduces the UN’s capacity to protect civilians and support governance reforms. It risks weakening capabilities in policing, justice, and rule of law, functions often essential for long-term peace. A narrow focus on peacemaking cannot fully replace these roles.
However, clinging to a model that is no longer viable is less compelling. A more pragmatic approach is to match tools to context while preserving the capacities needed to sustain agreements.
For major powers, particularly the United States, this reframing offers advantages. Transactional diplomacy requires mechanisms to sustain outcomes. UN peace operations can act as force multipliers, extending the lifespan of agreements and reducing the risk of relapse at relatively low cost. Ignoring this supporting infrastructure would be a strategic mistake.
The convergence among Secretary-General candidates suggests awareness of this gap. But rhetoric alone is insufficient. Reorienting peace operations toward peacemaking will require member states to accept smaller footprints, clearer mandates, and a shift in how success is measured.
The era of large blue-helmet missions may be ending. But the need for institutions that can bring adversaries together and keep them engaged is not diminishing. If anything, it is becoming more urgent as conflicts fragment and traditional frameworks weaken.
The UN’s strength has never been speed or decisiveness. It lies in persistence: its ability to provide a continuous platform for engagement. Recasting peace operations around that function will not restore past prominence, but it could secure a role that remains indispensable today.
