UN Peacekeeping Operations: Closed Consultations
Tomorrow afternoon (18 November), Security Council members will hold closed consultations on UN peacekeeping operations. Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix will brief on the contingency measures being implemented by UN peacekeeping missions funded by the peacekeeping budget to address the UN’s liquidity crisis, resulting from member states’ failure to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time.
On 30 June, the General Assembly approved a $5.38 billion budget for UN peacekeeping operations, including the UN Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. The discrepancy between the approved budget and the availability of cash continues to pose significant challenges, exacerbating the ongoing liquidity crisis and forcing the UN to reduce expenditures. According to the latest UN data, as at late October, only 61 member states had fully paid their contributions to the peacekeeping budget. The fiscal year for the peacekeeping budget runs from 1 July to 30 June.
A 13 October report on the financial situation of the UN presented by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly indicated that, as at 30 September, the total amount outstanding for peacekeeping operations stood at approximately $3.7 billion. Of this amount, around $3.2 billion was owed to active missions: $1.8 billion relating to assessments for the 2025-2026 period and approximately $1.4 billion pertaining to previous fiscal years, while the remaining $483 million was owed to missions that had closed. There are 11 active UN peacekeeping operations, of which nine are funded through the peacekeeping budget and two are funded under the regular budget. The biggest UN peacekeeping mission that closed recently was the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), which officially concluded its withdrawal on 31 December 2023 and its liquidation on 30 June. In August, the Security Council renewed the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for a final time, until 31 December 2026.
The 13 October report states that, as at 30 September, the cash available for peacekeeping operations was approximately $1.6 billion in the accounts of active missions, closed missions, and the Peacekeeping Reserve Fund (which has served since 2022 as a liquidity mechanism for peacekeeping missions). The report also adds that, for the first time in several years, the UN has outstanding payments totalling $333 million for contingent-owned equipment claims in active peacekeeping operations.
On 7 October, at a closed informal meeting, Secretary-General António Guterres apparently informed Security Council members and troop- and police-contributing countries (T/PCCs) about the need to reduce expenditures because of the expectation that not all member states would pay their contributions in full during the 2025-2026 budget year. The required emergency measures, which Guterres also outlined in a 10 October letter, include a 15 percent reduction in expenditure across all operations funded under the peacekeeping budget, involving not only the repatriation of around 25 percent of peacekeepers but also the termination of some national and international civilian staffing and other operating costs. Missions were instructed to develop their own plans for implementing these measures. In addition, Guterres said that UNSOS, also funded under the peacekeeping budget, will need to significantly reduce its expenditures. At the 7 October meeting, the Secretary-General apparently highlighted that, despite the emergency measures, he is determined to continue improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and cost-efficiency of UN peacekeeping operations.
The implementation of the contingency plans requires significant support from other stakeholders, including host countries and T/PCCs, on issues such as repatriation, contingent-owned equipment, and other technical and operational matters. In the case of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), for example, the South Sudanese government has reportedly made strong demands regarding the implementation of the mission’s contingency plan, insisting that any reductions be limited to international staff and that South Sudanese national staff receive favourable consideration. At tomorrow’s meeting, Lacroix, who visited South Sudan last month, may provide an overview of how these measures are being implemented there as well as across the other eight relevant UN peacekeeping missions.
The implementation of the contingency plans is likely to pose significant challenges for peacekeeping operations, which are expected to continue fulfilling their mandated tasks in a far more resource-constrained environment. It is expected that reduced funding may force missions to scale back patrols, limiting their ability to respond effectively to threats and to protect civilians. This could create security vacuums that spoilers might exploit, undermining hard-won gains.
The issue has also surfaced in recent UN peacekeeping mandate renewal processes. For example, during the recent negotiations on the mandate of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)—which was renewed on 13 November for another year through the adoption of resolution 2800— Council members requested a briefing on the implementation of the contingency plan and its impact on the mission. Tomorrow’s briefing will offer a broader overview of how these issues are affecting all relevant missions. Council members may be particularly interested in understanding how the implementation of the contingency plans could influence upcoming mandate renewal processes.
According to data presented on 9 October by Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance Catherine Pollard to the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, as at 30 September, three permanent Council members—the US, China, and Russia, assessed to contribute 26.1584 percent, 23.7851 percent, and 2.4898 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget respectively—had significant arrears to that budget. As at 15 November, the US owes $2.370 billion, China $697 million, and Russia $193 million.
In its statement at the Fifth Committee, the US insisted that the UN “needs to explore different approaches to long-standing, entrenched conflicts beyond endless peacekeeping missions that have had questionable results and numerous scandals”. In this regard, the US is apparently pushing for short-term extensions of peacekeeping missions’ mandates; requesting benchmarks to comprehensively assess the performance of peacekeepers; and seeking a strategic review of peacekeeping missions and options for their future to decide on their potential transition, reconfiguration, drawdown, and exit. This was the case in the most recent negotiations on the mandate renewals of MINUSCA and the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA). (For more information, see our 12 and 13 November What’s in Blue stories.)
For its part, China emphasised at the Fifth Committee the need to fully implement the core mandates of UN peacekeeping missions—to support political processes and consolidate peace and security—with necessary resources, while at the same time strengthening budgetary performance with a view to improving efficiency and enhancing effectiveness. Additionally, Russia argued that it is unacceptable for the UN Secretariat to adopt measures unilaterally, without consultation or consent from member states. Russia also maintained that any cost-saving measures adopted in response to the liquidity crisis must not impede the functioning of key intergovernmental bodies or the implementation of peacekeeping mandates.
Other Council members—such as Algeria, Denmark, France, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and the UK—have paid their assessed contributions to the peacekeeping budget, according to the UN’s latest list from October. Among the incoming members, Bahrain, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Latvia have also done so.
At the 9 September Security Council open debate on UN peace operations, several Council members stressed that the UN’s financial challenges must not undermine peacekeeping. Greece, Guyana, and Slovenia, in particular, warned that the liquidity crisis should not compromise core civilian and uniformed capacities, nor the safety, credibility, or effectiveness of peacekeeping missions. Greece emphasised that essential functions—including the protection of civilians and gender and human rights priorities—are foundational to lasting peace and cannot be treated as optional.
At that meeting, Algeria highlighted the need for cost-effectiveness, stressing that financial pressures should drive reform and more strategic, result-oriented missions, while opposing indiscriminate budget cuts. It also underscored that doing “more with less” requires targeted investments in prevention, mediation, and viable political strategies. Pakistan cautioned that the liquidity crisis erodes the credibility of peacekeeping and creates dangerous gaps, calling for assessed contributions to be paid in full and on time. It also expressed support for efficiency initiatives, provided that they do not hollow out essential mission capacities. These members may repeat similar messages at tomorrow’s closed consultations.
