The unclear future of peace operations.

 

Many different factors will decide the fate of these scenarios, yet two aspects stand out as key variables. The future of peace operations critically depends on mobilizing resources. The UN also stopped mandating new large multidimensional peace operations because of budget constraints, and political missions have been supported within UN Security Council, because they are much less intrusive, but also much less expensive than sending troops. African peace operations have been heavily financed by the EU and other Western actors. At the end of 2023, an agreement was reached about the UN financing up to 75% of future African peace operations. Non-military instruments have been, on the contrary, less costly [see Figure 6].

The mobilization of ad hoc coalitions further weakens the binding character of regional norms and standards, and is likely to reduce the willingness to further invest in collective security mechanisms and to maintain the idea that international peace is an international public good whose cost is also shared by the international community. Bilateral interventions (like those pursued by Rwanda) will rely on cash (or mineral resource) payment for security provision services delivered in other countries. Multilateral peace operations, on the contrary, have not been related to the availability of mineral resources in a conflict theatre. A second critical variable concerns shifting notions of which understandings of peace future peace operations are supposed to promote. The original UN concern with maintaining international peace through pacifying interstate wars turned since the 1990s into the peace project of transforming divided societies through democratization and rule of law. As the liberal approach has lost much of its appeal, it has become unclear which peace doctrine guides peace missions. Looking at the three scenarios outlined here, most ad hoc missions are either counter-insurgency operations, or are promoting the stability of existing regimes, whose features might have contributed to the violent conflicts in the first place. A future of pragmatic peace operations under an UN umbrella might accommodate many different peace projects, but also de facto be restricted to more limited mandates or authorize stabilization missions. The very idea of peacebuilding, on the contrary, was built on the understanding that a sustainable peace requires building on resources and institutions which exist within conflict-affected societies, and that it necessarily needs to address root causes of conflicts and transforming conflictual relationships into cooperative ones. The international community and policymakers from both the Global South and the Global North have thus many reasons to further support multilateral peace operations. Multidimensional missions might be further required, but should build on a coordinated division of roles between different actors and set political objectives which move beyond stabilizing incumbent regimes. Policymakers should also continue to advocate for a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding, which strategically integrates national and local infrastructures for peace into discussions about (continuation of) UN or non-UN peace operation mandates.