Global leaders call for major reforms to save UN peacekeeping missions as violence surges, political deadlock deepens, and the threat of reduced U.S. funding looms
With wars flaring across continents and trust in global institutions waning, the United Nations Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin this week became a pressure valve for an overburdened and underfunded system.
From May 13 to 14, some 130 UN member states—60 represented at the ministerial level—gathered in the German capital to salvage what remains one of the UN’s most visible and contested functions.
The Berlin summit came at a critical time. Participation surged compared to previous years—74 countries pledged new financial or operational support, up from 33 in 2023. But the mood inside conference halls was far from celebratory. With missions faltering and budgets stretched thin, calls for reform are intensifying.
Despite the influx of pledges, many were symbolic, lacking the urgency or scale to reverse peacekeeping’s slow decline. UN peacekeeping personnel totaled just 67,715 in 2024, down by nearly 40% from its 2015 peak. No new mission has been approved in over a decade, even as violence surges in regions like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“The future of UN peacekeeping will depend on the organization’s capacity to innovate in the face of its many challenges,” said Comfort Ero, president of the International Crisis Group. “UN members should invest more in the political side of conflict management. This is especially important as the UN tries to move away from big, never-ending multidimensional missions.”
Secretary-General António Guterres echoed this urgency, stating, “Peace operations cannot succeed without a political solution.” The challenge, he added, is not just in deploying troops but in building sustainable pathways to peace.
Washington’s silence echoes loudest
One of the summit’s most conspicuous absences was the United States. As a historic top funder and co-chair of the Ministerial process, the U.S. made no pledges this year—a move widely seen as a signal of possible deeper cuts under the Trump administration. Donald Trump’s government has long questioned UN missions’ efficiency and strategic value, often prioritizing bilateral deals and “America First” diplomacy over multilateral engagements. If the U.S. pulls back further, peacekeeping budgets—already strained by mounting arrears and erratic contributions—could face a critical tipping point. Eleven active missions rely heavily on U.S. funding, and diplomats warn that without it, key operations may shutter or devolve into token efforts. Germany’s foreign minister bluntly acknowledged the gap: “Others won’t fully be able to fill it.”
Still, Berlin was not without progress. Germany called for a strategic overhaul of peacekeeping, advocating for more “realistic, modular mandates” and greater local ownership in conflict zones. Yet, the conversation remained largely technical. “Delegates tended to focus on improving UN peacekeeping as an end in itself,” Ero noted, “rather than addressing how peace operations can better facilitate political processes and preventive efforts.”
Concrete reform ideas are beginning to surface. The UN’s Department of Peace Operations presented 30 future mission models, envisioning more agile, people-centered, and politically driven approaches. Ahead of the Berlin meeting, regional sessions in Montevideo, Jakarta, and Islamabad explored how to incorporate new technologies and improve safety.
Even as pledges were made—from helicopters to training programs to renewable energy systems—funding shortfalls hung over the summit. A multi-year funding shortfall, worsened by delayed payments from the U.S. and China, has led to hiring freezes and late reimbursements to peacekeeping countries. While a few mentioned the U.S. or China directly, the concern was apparent. Delegates repeatedly called for timely payments, warning that ongoing financial instability is weakening the UN’s ability to carry out its missions.
Many of today’s most urgent conflicts were notably absent from the agenda. Panama’s foreign minister called for a UN force in Haiti, but the proposal remains blocked in the Security Council. Both China and Russia have resisted approving new deployments, citing concerns over mission effectiveness, sovereignty, and what they view as the West’s overreach in shaping international responses. Beijing, in particular, has grown more skeptical of traditional peacekeeping mandates that it perceives as interfering in domestic affairs or being heavily Western-influenced. Russia, meanwhile, has often used its veto to curtail UN actions that it sees as politically motivated or biased, particularly in regions where it has strategic interests.
The Berlin Ministerial offered more of a reality check than a breakthrough. It showcased a growing recognition that peacekeeping must evolve and how far the system is from the cohesive strategy it needs.
“UN members should protect mediation and conflict prevention expertise during the looming period of budget cuts,” Ero suggests. “Beyond bolstering military assets, they must invest political capital into the peace processes that blue helmets help secure.”
The road ahead
As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary and reflects on the decade since the 2015 Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping, expectations for reform are mounting. Expanding the conversation to the UN General Assembly could help build the broad coalitions necessary for systemic change.
The Berlin ministerial may not have answered the question of peacekeeping’s future, but it sharpened the contours of the debate. The next few years will test whether UN member states can move from pledges to policies—from crisis response to conflict prevention.
The key question is whether peacekeeping can evolve fast enough to remain effective in today’s conflicts. As the Berlin summit showed, the answer may determine the future of these missions.
About The Author
