UN Peace Operations: Open Debate
Tomorrow (9 September), the Security Council will hold an open debate on UN peace operations, titled “The future of peace operations: key issues, opportunities and challenges in the context of the review on the future of all forms of UN peace operations”. The expected briefers are Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix; Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo; Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) Ambassador Thomas Zahneisen (Germany); and Jenna Russo, the Director of Research and Head of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations at the International Peace Institute (IPI).
The Republic of Korea (ROK), September’s Security Council president, is convening the meeting in cooperation with Denmark and Pakistan as part of the “Trio” initiative to highlight UN peace operations in the Council’s work. During its Security Council presidency in March, Denmark convened an open debate on “Advancing adaptability in UN peace operations: responding to new realities”. In July, Pakistan also organised a briefing titled “Adapting peace operations for the pursuit of political solutions – priorities and challenges” as part of its Security Council presidency. Tomorrow’s open debate is expected to build on these meetings, providing another opportunity for Council members and the wider UN membership to share their views on how to make UN peace operations better positioned to meet both present and future challenges.
The ROK has circulated a concept note (S/2025/547) to help guide the discussion, highlighting UN peace operations—which include both peacekeeping operations and special political missions—as one of the most tangible and effective tools available to the Security Council for maintaining international peace and security. The concept note acknowledges the challenges facing UN peace operations amid the evolving nature of conflicts, a resource-constrained environment, and a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. In this regard, it references the Pact for the Future—the outcome document of the September 2024 Summit of the Future—which underscores the need for UN peace operations to adapt to these dynamics in order to meet evolving needs. The Pact requested the Secretary-General to undertake a comprehensive review of all forms of UN peace operations, with a view to providing strategic and action-oriented recommendations to achieve this objective.
By convening tomorrow’s open debate, the ROK apparently wants to allow member states to reflect on progress made in implementing the Pact for the Future one year after its adoption, particularly regarding the ongoing review of all forms of UN peace operations. The ROK also intends to frame this discussion within the context of the UN80 initiative, which was announced by Secretary-General António Guterres on 12 March and aims to implement deeper structural reforms and programmatic alignment across the UN system, including in peace operations, in order to enhance efficiency and improve overall effectiveness.
Tomorrow, Lacroix and DiCarlo are expected to brief Council members on the progress made thus far in the ongoing review, including internal consultations held across the UN system, informal briefings with the General Assembly, and engagement with other intergovernmental bodies such as the General Assembly’s Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) and the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C34). They are also likely to reference input received from over 40 member states and other stakeholders. Tomorrow’s meeting may allow their respective departments, which are conducting the review, to gather additional input from Council members and the broader UN membership for the ongoing review. In this regard, the concept note proposes several questions to help guide the discussion, including:
- how can efforts to establish more targeted and achievable mandates be balanced with broader peacebuilding imperatives, including by leveraging the broader UN system?
- how can issues like protection, gender, and human rights remain prioritised across a range of mission types, including those with smaller footprints?
- in the context of the UN80 initiative, what core capacities must be maintained in the field and within the UN Secretariat to ensure that UN peace operations can readily respond to a range of potential peace and security crises?
- how can UN peace operations further contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes, including in line with the call made by resolution 2788 of 22 July for the continued use of mediation, preventive diplomacy, and the Secretary-General’s good offices?
As the chair of the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and a member of the PBC, the ROK appears particularly interested in the nexus between peace operations and peacebuilding. It seems that the ROK invited the Chair of the PBC to help frame the discussion within this context. At the time of writing, the PBC was negotiating the draft statement to the Council, which requires adoption by consensus. If the statement is approved, it may highlight the significant contributions that the PBC has made over the years through its advisory role and convening power in building consensus, mobilising resources, and sustaining political attention on countries emerging from conflict. The statement might also underscore the complementarity between the ongoing review of the peacebuilding architecture and the review of all forms of UN peace operations, emphasising the importance of integrating a peacebuilding perspective across the peace continuum, which includes leveraging the full and flexible range of UN responses needed to sustain peace throughout the entire conflict cycle.
The future of UN peace operations has been a major focus for both Security Council members and the broader UN membership in the past year. Guterres has consistently advocated for missions that are agile, flexible, and adaptable—capable of responding effectively to evolving needs amid rapidly shifting conflict dynamics. However, member states remain divided on the future of UN peace operations. Some emphasise the importance of focusing on what they consider “core mandates” that support countries emerging from conflict, such as support to the implementation of peace agreements, political transitions, security sector reform (SSR), and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR). These member states express concern over the broadening of mandates to include what they describe as “secondary issues”—such as human rights, gender, and climate change—arguing that this expansion represents a shift away from the traditional approaches of UN peace operations. Within the Council, China and Russia have typically reflected this position, but more recently, the US also appears to have aligned with this view, emphasising the need to “go back to basics” and opposing references to issues such as gender and climate change in Council products. By contrast, other Council members stress the continued relevance of mandates related to the protection of civilians, human rights, and the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda, viewing these as essential to achieving and sustaining lasting peace.
The ROK, which is a supporter of the joint pledges related to climate, peace and security and has signed on to the Shared Commitments on WPS, has sought to highlight these priorities in the context of tomorrow’s open debate. Ahead of the meeting, it will join other Council members that are supporters of the pledges related to climate, peace and security—Denmark, France, Greece, Guyana, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and the UK—for a stake-in on the issue. Additionally, some of the briefers at tomorrow’s meeting are expected to emphasise the importance of promoting women’s role in efforts to advance the maintenance of international peace and security, including their participation in mediation processes and in UN peace operations.
Another issue that is likely to colour tomorrow’s discussion is the growing emphasis on ensuring cost-effectiveness in light of the resource constraints facing UN peace operations. The US contributes 26 percent of the peacekeeping budget and 22 percent of the regular UN budget. The possibility that the US may not pay its assessed contributions this year has already triggered budget cuts across several peace operations. On 29 August, US President Donald Trump approved a “pocket rescission” package, cancelling $5 billion in foreign aid and funding to international organisations—including approximately $800 million in contributions to UN peacekeeping.
Guterres has expressed hope that the ongoing review of UN peace operations will help identify efficiencies and inform broader reform efforts under the UN80 initiative. While many member states are eager to see how the review and UN80 can be mutually reinforcing, there remains little clarity on how this alignment will be operationalised in practical terms. Relevant departments within the UN Secretariat appear cautious about conflating the two processes, continuing to treat them as distinct and separate tracks. Nonetheless, some member states have cautioned that cost-effectiveness should not be equated with doing less. They may echo such messages at tomorrow’s meeting, emphasising that financial constraints must not undermine the international community’s commitment or resolve in supporting UN peace operations. These members may also voice concerns that efforts to ensure cost-efficiency could weaken the capacity of UN peace operations to effectively implement their mandates, especially in critical areas such as the protection of civilians.
