Peacekeeping operations are among the main tools the United Nations has for translating the international community’s commitment to global peace and security into action on the ground. Yet, their effectiveness has increasingly become hostage to the availability of funding.
In Africa, where armed conflicts are deeply intertwined with complex humanitarian crises, financial resources serve as the lifeline of these missions, ensuring their ability to deploy rapidly and provide protection for civilians. With mounting financial pressures and declining contributions from major powers, questions arise about the future of such operations and their sustainability.
Cuts in funding not only undermine the operational capacity of missions but also carry profound political and security implications that strike at the heart of the international community’s responsibility to protect the most vulnerable.
The role of funding is central to the success of UN operations, particularly in Africa’s fragile environments. Adequate financial resources enable the deployment and equipping of troops, logistical support, and training programmes that build both military and civilian capacities.
These elements form an integrated system that allows missions to respond swiftly to threats against civilians. When funding falls short, this system weakens, insecurity rises, and vulnerable populations face greater risks. In this sense, financial resources are not only about sustaining operations but also about preserving the legitimacy of peacekeeping itself, as they translate the UN’s commitment into real impacts on the ground.
Sustainable funding underpins the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions in complex African conflicts. From air and ground transport to temporary infrastructure, every aspect of operations depends on member state contributions. Without adequate resources, missions cannot achieve their core objectives of deterrence, mediation, and the protection of civilians. Funding thus represents the cornerstone of the UN’s presence in conflict zones, shaping whether its efforts are meaningful or merely symbolic.
Beyond their military functions, these financial resources allow the creation of civilian mechanisms to monitor human rights, promote the rule of law, and build trust between peacekeepers and local communities. These non-military dimensions are essential for long-term stability, yet when resources dwindle, missions are forced into reactive rather than preventive roles, leaving societies without the tools to build resilient institutions.
Funding also carries symbolic and political weight, reflecting the international community’s commitment to protecting civilians. Increased contributions send a clear signal that global actors are united in preventing human suffering, while budget cuts communicate neglect and weaken local trust in peacekeeping. Without adequate funding, UN peacekeeping cannot fulfill its promise of shielding humanity from the devastations of war.
The implications of reduced funding are visible far beyond budget sheets. With fewer troops, less training, and reduced equipment, peacekeepers struggle to contain armed groups that exploit security vacuums in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mali. Women and children face heightened risks of abuse and forced recruitment, while communities accuse missions of ineffectiveness, often overlooking the fact that financial shortfalls are the root cause of these gaps.
Shrinking budgets also force missions to reduce their geographical reach, leaving rural and remote areas exposed. In places such as the Central African Republic, patrols and preventive interventions become less frequent, enabling armed groups to strike with impunity. Civilians, left without reliable protection, increasingly turn to militias or self-defence groups, fuelling cycles of violence rather than breaking them.
Amid the financial crisis currently affecting UN peacekeeping operations, discussions are increasingly turning towards exploring more pragmatic models of peacekeeping. Some states have proposed adjustable mandates or a greater reliance on regional arrangements, particularly in partnership with the African Union (AU). Such shifts may reduce costs and improve responsiveness, but they raise critical questions about whether these models can preserve the neutrality and legitimacy of UN peacekeeping.
Downsizing missions or adopting temporary roles may conserve resources, yet they risk weakening international confidence in the UN’s effectiveness, ultimately leaving civilians more vulnerable to political volatility and waning global attention.
In the long term, the future of civilian protection depends on whether the proposed reforms to peacekeeping succeed in redefining the UN’s role. Reform could entail integrating new tools such as digital mediation, greater engagement with civil society, and a stronger focus on conflict prevention rather than post-conflict management.
However, such a vision requires clear political commitments from member states, particularly within the Security Council, an outcome that is far from guaranteed amid current geopolitical divisions. As such, the future of peacekeeping remains suspended between aspirations for reform and the hard realities of great power politics and persistent financial constraints.
Any debate on reforming UN peacekeeping remains incomplete without sustainable financing mechanisms that ensure the continuity of the UN’s role in safeguarding international peace and security.
The writer is a researcher in African affairs.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 25 September, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: