Increased US commitments to the UN solves, leadership is key

In many cases, the international community turns to multilateral peacekeepers. Despite U.N. peacekeeping’s track record of relative success and its role in shouldering a burden that might otherwise be borne by the United States and other powerful member states, U.N. peacekeeping faces constant financial pressure and logistical challenges. As the Biden administration begins to put its imprint on U.S. foreign policy, it should demonstrate its commitment to multilateralism by reinvigorating American support for effective peacekeeping and leading other member states in doing the same. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) and the largest funder of the Department of Peace Operations (DPO)—which oversees U.N. peacekeeping—the United States plays an important leadership role in authorizing and shaping U.N. missions. With increasingly assertive rivals like Russia and China seeking to erode U.S. leadership, the Biden administration should work to resolve the thorny issues being debated in New York, including whether and how the U.N. should support regionally led peace operations, the role of the U.N. in counterterrorism, and how to mainstream and adequately resource peacebuilding as a core function of U.N. peacekeeping. Peacekeeping Works, But the Context is Changing Since the first blue-helmeted U.N. troops were deployed in the Middle East in 1948, the Security Council has authorized 70 peacekeeping missions and deployed more than one-million peacekeepers from 110 nations to help countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. Today, about 95,000 peacekeepers serve in 13 operations worldwide and remain largely committed to the cardinal rules defined at peacekeeping’s inception: impartiality, consent of the host country, and the use of force as a last resort. Over 72 years, U.N. peacekeeping missions have supported political transitions, disarmed hundreds of thousands of combatants, facilitated free and fair elections, and helped new countries—such as Timor Leste—come into being. While many of the post-World War II international institutions are under increasing strain, U.N. peacekeeping has proven resilient and remains a centerpiece of the U.N. system and a critical conflict management tool—despite inconsistent member state support, logistical and bureaucratic restraints, and multiple cases of sexual abuse and other high-profile scandals. Two of the international community’s most devastating atrocity prevention failures—the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the Serbian army’s 1995 massacre of Muslim civilians in Srebrenica—exposed structural deficiencies within U.N. peacekeeping and their human cost. The United Nations and member states have spent more than two decades working to prevent a repeat of these shameful episodes, with positive results. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown that more peacekeepers in conflict areas correlates with fewer civilian deaths, less violence, and a better chance at lasting peace. The Effective Peace Operations Network’s (EPON) comprehensive reports on the U.N. missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Mali—two of its most criticized—present evidence that U.N. peacekeeping had a positive effect on reducing levels of violence and providing some measure of protection to civilians. Another EPON report on an African Union- (AU) led peacekeeping operation in Somalia reached a similar conclusion. Yet, despite peacekeepers’ best efforts, violence continues or worsens (e.g., in Mali), civilians are still dying, and the prospects for peace look bleak. However, these harsh realities suggest more about the fundamental limitations of U.N. peacekeeping than its overall efficacy. Peacekeeping is a conflict management and mitigation tool, not a solution to the complex underlying drivers of conflict. The United States and other U.N. member states therefore have a responsibility to reinforce peacekeeping missions with robust diplomacy and accountability measures to encourage conflict actors to adhere to their commitments (e.g., cease-fires) and obligations under international humanitarian law.