UN Peace Operations: Open Debate
On Monday (24 March), the Security Council will hold an open debate titled “Advancing adaptability in UN Peace Operations-responding to new realities” under the agenda item “Maintenance of international peace and security”. Denmark’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, is expected to chair the meeting, which is the only signature event of Denmark’s Council Presidency in March. The expected briefers are Secretary-General António Guterres and Jenna Russo, the Director of Research and Head of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations at the International Peace Institute (IPI).
Denmark has circulated a concept note ahead of the meeting, which describes UN peace operations as “a unique and indispensable multilateral tool for conflict management”. It also acknowledges the increasingly complex challenges facing UN peace operations, as noted by the Pact for the Future (the outcome document of the 2024 Summit of the Future), which underscored the need to “adapt peace operations to better respond to existing challenges and new realities”. Through this debate, Denmark aims to facilitate a broader reflection by Council members and the wider UN membership on how to ensure the adaptability of peace operations to new conflict dynamics and to provide a more agile, responsive, and effective response to current peace and security threats.
The concept note highlights efforts to reform peace operations, including through the implementation of the recommendations of the 2015 report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO). A decade after HIPPO, the Pact for the Future requested the Secretary-General to undertake a review of UN peace operations, taking into account the lessons learned from previous and ongoing reform processes. Unlike HIPPO, the upcoming review is expected to be conducted by the UN Secretariat, involving the relevant departments. The process is likely to include a series of consultations with intergovernmental committees of the General Assembly, the Security Council, troop- and police-contributing countries, host states, and other stakeholders. Monday’s meeting will provide Council members and the wider UN membership with an opportunity to express their views about the review and what they expect from it.
Monday’s debate is also taking place in the context of other important processes, including the 2025 UN Peacekeeping Ministerial, which will be held in Berlin on 13 and 14 May and serve as a high-level political forum to discuss the future of peacekeeping. The fourth UN Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR)—a process carried out every five years to strengthen and refine UN peacebuilding efforts worldwide—is also currently underway. (For more information, see the brief on peacekeeping and the In Hindsight in our February 2025 Monthly Forecast as well as our research report titled “The Peacebuilding Commission at 20: Progress, Challenges, and the Road Ahead”.) Monday’s meeting could therefore offer an opportunity for some member states to discuss ways to promote greater synergy between the PBAR and the review of peace operations, which is expected to be launched imminently.
Prior to the open debate, Denmark, together with Pakistan and the ROK, hosted an informal roundtable on 18 March with the participation of Council members and other relevant stakeholders to offer insights and analyse emerging trends on the future of UN peace operations. The three elected members are working together this year as part of a “Peacekeeping Trio Initiative”, with Pakistan and the ROK expected to convene meetings focused on peacekeeping during their upcoming presidencies in July and September, respectively.
According to the concept note, Monday’s meeting also seeks to address the issue of peace operations transitions in light of the drawdown and exit of missions in recent years. In September 2021, the Security Council adopted resolution 2594, which described transitions as “a strategic process which builds towards a reconfiguration of the strategy, footprint, and capacity of the United Nations in a way that supports peacebuilding objectives and the development of a sustainable peace”. However, there has been no formal Security Council follow-up meeting on the implementation of this important resolution, except at the subsidiary body level. In this regard, in August 2024, the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and the Ad-hoc Working group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa—then chaired by the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Mozambique, respectively—held a joint meeting that focused on the issue of transitions. More recently, in December 2024, the Security Council adopted resolution 2764 that highlighted the need to facilitate adequate and sustainable child protection capacities in UN peace operations, including in the context of transitions to or from UN missions.
The concept note proposes several questions to help guide the discussion at Monday’s meeting, including:
- How can the Security Council support more adaptable peace operations across the full peace continuum, from conflict prevention to peacekeeping and post-conflict recovery?
- How to improve the alignment of mission mandates to ensure agility and flexibility throughout the duration of peace operations in response to evolving security conditions?
- How can the Security Council support the “primacy of politics” as the cornerstone of peace operations, with a focus on finding political solutions through diplomacy, dialogue, and negotiations?
At Monday’s meeting, Guterres may share his vision on the future of UN peacekeeping as outlined in his A New Agenda for Peace, in which he advocated for “more nimble, adaptable and effective mission models” that can respond to the evolving nature of conflicts. In November 2024, the Department of Peace Operations (DPO) released an independent study that it commissioned, titled, Future of Peacekeeping, New Models, and Related Capabilities, which proposed 30 different models covering a broad spectrum of both traditional and emerging tasks. This study is expected to be the basis for discussion at the 2025 Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin.
Guterres may also address the doctrinal and operational limitations of UN peace operations in the face of a crisis of host state consent, which has led to the departure of several missions in recent years. In this context, the Secretary-General has been a strong advocate for the role of regional and sub-regional organisations in enforcement and counter-terrorism operations. Specifically, he has emphasised the need for “a new generation of peace support operations led by African partners, with guaranteed funding, including through UN assessed contributions, to address the peace and security challenges on the continent” and welcomed the adoption of resolution 2719 of 21 December 2023 on the financing of African Union (AU)-led peace support operations.
Guterres may also address ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of UN peace operations. In the context of the liquidity crisis faced by the UN and the push for budget cuts, the Secretary-General appears to be cognisant that peace operations will need to achieve more with fewer resources. In this regard, he may refer to the new initiative he announced on 12 March, which aims to implement “deeper, more structural changes and programme realignment in the UN system” to ensure better value for money. This key consideration is likely to influence the upcoming review of UN peace operations.
Russo may cover the changes needed in the UN system for the UN to move towards a modular approach to peace operations, as well as the advantages and risks of such an approach.
Council members broadly agree on the need for peace operations to evolve and adapt to changing realities. They also recognise the importance of more focused, realistic, adaptable, and achievable mandates. In this regard, they have been working to identify missions’ priority tasks and differentiate between core mission mandates and other responsibilities. Additionally, there has been an effort to move away from “Christmas-tree mandates”—a term used in the HIPPO report to describe a situation whereby Council members mandate a UN peace operation with so many tasks that they could risk diluting the mission’s efforts—in favour of streamlining mandates to make them more concise.
Council members also support strengthening partnerships, including with the AU and its regional mechanisms. The implementation of resolution 2719 is facing significant challenges, however, particularly due to strong opposition from the US regarding its application to Somalia, which is being considered as the first test case. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Senator James Risch, recently conveyed the position that resolution 2719 should not be used to fund the AU Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), which the Security Council authorised in December 2024. He argued that doing so “would lock the US into perpetual funding through its dues to the UN”, a commitment he said would ultimately be a disservice to the American taxpayer.
In light of the crisis of host state consent and growing frustration among local communities, Council members support enhancing cooperation with host countries and adopting people-centred approaches to better meet the needs and expectations of peace operations. In the context of the drawdown and exit of peace operations in recent years, they also advocate for better-managed transitions with clear exit strategies. Crucially, some members who contribute troops to UN peace operations place significant emphasis on the safety and security of peacekeepers.
However, geopolitical dynamics have undermined Council unity and consensus in recent years regarding UN peace operations. There are also significant differences among Council members on thematic and cross-cutting issues. Some members, such as China and Russia, maintain that peace operations’ mandates should remain focused on core issues, resisting efforts by other members to prioritise thematic and cross-cutting issues like human rights, women, peace and security (WPS), and climate, peace and security. This divide could become more pronounced in the coming period, with the US under the administration of President Donald Trump taking positions that appear to align more closely with China and Russia on these issues than the previous administration.
