by Our Diplomatic Affairs Editor
A landmark assessment from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has revealed a sharp and sustained contraction in global peacekeeping, warning that multilateral conflict management is entering its most fragile period in decades. The analysis, issued ahead of the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers, portrays a system under strain from geopolitical rivalry, financial shortfalls and waning political consensus, leaving the architecture of international peace operations increasingly exposed. It argues that what was once a steadily expanding pillar of global governance is now shrinking in both scale and influence, with consequences that could reshape how conflicts are managed worldwide.
At the end of 2025, just 78,633 international personnel were deployed across multilateral peace operations, marking a 17 per cent decline in a single year and a dramatic 49 per cent fall compared with 2016. This represents the lowest level recorded in at least 25 years. Although 58 operations remained active in 34 countries and territories, the overall footprint of peacekeeping has diminished significantly, with nearly three quarters of all personnel concentrated in only five missions. Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe each hosted 18 operations, while the Middle East and North Africa accounted for 14, the Americas five, and Asia and Oceania just three, underscoring the uneven geography of contemporary conflict management.
The SIPRI report attributes this decline not to a single cause but to a convergence of pressures that have intensified over the past decade. Financial instability within the United Nations system stands out as a critical factor. In mid-2025, UN peace operations faced a funding gap of around US$2 billion, equivalent to more than a third of their total budget cycle, forcing abrupt expenditure cuts and significant reductions in uniformed personnel. Delayed or incomplete contributions from major donor states exacerbated the crisis, creating what SIPRI describes as a liquidity shock that translated directly into operational downsizing on the ground.
Geopolitical tensions have further compounded these financial constraints. In the UN Security Council, rising mistrust and veto-driven bargaining have increasingly obstructed mandate renewals and the establishment of new missions. Disputes among permanent members have made consensus harder to achieve even in long-standing operations. The debate over the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, which faced termination demands from one major power before being granted a final extension until 2026, illustrates how fragile political agreement has become even in established theatres of deployment.
The consequences of this deadlock are also visible in the emergence of new but limited arrangements in crisis zones. In Haiti, for example, the United Nations authorised a hybrid model combining an ad hoc Gang Suppression Force with a supporting UN logistics office, following earlier failures to convert an existing multinational mission into a fully fledged UN peacekeeping operation. Similarly, discussions on a Gaza stabilisation force have resulted in authorisation without deployment, reflecting the gap between political endorsement and operational execution that increasingly characterises modern peacekeeping.
Alongside UN difficulties, regional organisations have also struggled to fill the vacuum. Bodies such as the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe continue to deploy missions, but their capacity is constrained by similar funding shortages and internal divisions. The closure of operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iraq, alongside transitions in Somalia and Haiti, highlights a broader pattern of contraction rather than expansion. Even where new missions have been launched, such as in Somalia under African Union leadership, they largely represent continuity under new labels rather than substantive reinforcement of capability.
SIPRI researchers argue that this reflects a deeper structural problem: regional organisations lack both the financial stability and the integrated operational capacity required for sustained peacebuilding. While they play an important role in local conflict management, their dependence on external funding and consensus among diverse member states limits their ability to respond decisively to large-scale crises. As a result, the burden of international peace operations is increasingly fragmented across overlapping but under-resourced actors.
Another striking development identified in the report is the growing reliance on unilateral, bilateral and ad hoc military arrangements. Middle powers and regional actors are increasingly deploying forces outside traditional multilateral frameworks, often under national or narrowly defined coalitions. These include deployments by individual states in parts of Africa and the growing use of “mini-lateral” groupings to manage specific disputes. While these arrangements can act quickly, SIPRI warns they tend to prioritise short-term security objectives over long-term conflict resolution and often operate with limited accountability to international norms.
Despite this fragmentation, the report notes that political support for the idea of multilateral peacekeeping remains broadly intact. More than 130 UN member states participated in discussions on the future of peace operations at a ministerial meeting in Berlin in 2025, and new ceasefire agreements continue to include provisions for international monitoring forces. However, SIPRI cautions that rhetorical support has not translated into the sustained funding and political compromise required to maintain effective operations.
The analysis highlights a broader shift in global conflict management away from institutionalised multilateralism towards more transactional and decentralised forms of intervention. This shift is driven in part by major power competition, particularly between permanent members of the UN Security Council, and by growing reluctance among some states to finance collective security mechanisms. The result, SIPRI suggests, is a gradual erosion of shared norms that have underpinned peacekeeping since the mid-20th century.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute warns that the current trajectory, if left unaddressed, could lead to a world in which fewer conflicts are managed through coordinated international frameworks and more are left to fragmented, uneven and often militarised responses. The report stresses that this does not represent an inevitable decline, but rather a political choice shaped by priorities in funding and diplomacy. It argues that stabilising the system would require predictable financial commitments and renewed political space within the UN Security Council and regional organisations.
The SIPRI findings suggest that multilateral peace operations are not disappearing, but they are being steadily weakened. As personnel numbers fall, missions shrink and new deployments struggle to materialise, the architecture of global peacekeeping appears to be entering a period of prolonged uncertainty. Whether this marks a temporary downturn or a structural transformation of international conflict management will depend on decisions taken by states in the coming years, particularly those with the power to fund and authorise collective security efforts.
