Monday Commentary: UN Peacekeeping must be protected in more ways than one

UN Peacekeeping must be protected in more ways than one

Dr Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS Europe Foundation, and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu. He writes Monday Commentary weekly for commonspace.eu.

The news that six members of UNIFIL – the UN Peacekeeping force in Lebanon – have been killed in the last few weeks, has been overshadowed by the broader desperation of the situation in the Middle East.

In March Israel launched an orgy of violence in Lebanon, killing thousands of people, and forcing the displacement of more than a million Lebanese.

 Yet, the killing of the six UNIFIL members is a significant indicator of the gravity of the situation facing UN peacekeepers in numerous trouble-spots around the globe. Israel and Hizballah are blamed for the killing of the six UNIFIL soldiers – four Indonesian and two French – in separate incidents. Their death unfortunately is symbolic of a dangerous trend: UN peacekeepers are increasingly specifically targeted. They are in the eyes of belligerents a legitimate target. They are not. Killing peacekeepers is a violation of international humanitarian law. The perpetrators of this crime must be pursued.

The UN had 11 peacekeeping operations with 61,197 peacekeepers in 2025. This number is set to decrease.

UNIFIL is one of the operations which is set to be closed by December 2026. The peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon was first established by the Security Council in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and help restore order after Israel's first invasion of the country.

Since then, at least 345 UNIFIL members have died while on duty, including 48 Irish and 42 French.

The UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO) has in its reports to the Security Council, highlighted the difficult environment in which UN peace operations are operating amid ongoing geopolitical tensions. Peacekeepers continue to face increasing risks to their safety and security.

UN peace operations have also increasingly become targets of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech. This underscores the need for enhanced strategic communications in UN peace operations, a means to create better awareness of their role and mandate among local populations. Missions continue to engage with host countries to improve their operating environment and address various restrictions against them in violation of Status of Force Agreements, agreed with host countries, which has become increasingly an issue.

In recent years, there has been growing pressure during mandate renewal negotiations for the removal of thematic and cross-cutting language on human rights; women, peace and security (WPS); and climate, peace and security, among other matters. In this regard, China and Russia have maintained that certain thematic issues are not relevant to the Council’s work and that their inclusion in the mandates of peace operations is unwarranted or even problematic. This trend could become even more pronounced recently, with the Trump administration assuming positions that align more closely with China and Russia on these issues.

Yet, it is financial constraints that are a more existential threat to UN peacekeeping operations.

The impact of the UN’s liquidity crisis on UN peacekeeping operations is a major concern. The UN is expected to run out of cash in July if member states, and particularly the US, do not pay their dues. The Secretary-General has warned that the organisation faces a major risk of “imminent financial collapse”, a situation that would have catastrophic implications for its peacekeeping missions.

The crisis in UN peacekeeping, and the broader UN financial crisis, reflects a deeper problem in the UN, and particularly in the leadership of the UN Security Council, and  its legitimacy.

As the authoritative publication, Security Council Report, wrote recently, “Peace operations are among the Council’s most crucial tools, serving as a visible demonstration of its efforts to promote international peace and security. However, ensuring their continued relevance requires addressing several key issues. In this regard, restoring the necessary trust and consensus within the Council, especially among the permanent members, appears to be paramount. While this is easier said than done in the current geopolitical environment, it remains essential to provide political support to peace operations to enable them to fulfil their mandates effectively.”

It is also felt that UN Security Council members need to enhance their efforts towards adopting realistic and achievable mandates for the peacekeeping missions, that align with the needs and expectations of host states and their communities.  

Aligning mandates with the resources and capabilities available to peace operations has also been a persistent challenge, which will be more pronounced with the increasing calls for cost efficiency and effectiveness.  

UN peace operations are crucial for world peace, particularly in areas and scenarios most vulnerable. They face increasing scrutiny of their effectiveness and disagreements about their objectives.

UN peacekeepers need to be protected on the ground by a robust upholding of international humanitarian law. Peacekeeping operations must have the unwavering support of the UN Security Council, which mandates them, and oversees them. The United Nations is often clumsy and ineffective, and is far from perfect. But it is the only tool the world has to manage our complex world in this dangerous moment. We need to stand up and support it.

Dr Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS Europe Foundation, and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu. He writes Monday Commentary weekly for commonspace.eu.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)