The United Nations has confirmed that it will cut 25 percent of its global peacekeeping force, a decision that could reshape the security landscape in regions already struggling with violence and instability. The move follows months of funding strains, largely driven by reduced contributions from major donors, including the United States, which has withheld part of its funding citing the need for what it calls “cost efficiency and accountability in peacekeeping operations.”
According to a press release from the UN Secretariat, the reduction is part of a “strategic realignment” aimed at ensuring sustainability in the face of growing financial constraints. However, many experts and humanitarian organizations fear the timing could not be worse. The cuts come at a moment when conflicts are flaring in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, where millions depend on UN protection and aid.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the decision as “painful but necessary,” explaining that “peacekeeping missions cannot operate effectively without predictable funding and the political will to sustain them.” He added that the organization has exhausted most of its emergency reserves and that “the credibility of multilateral peacekeeping depends on member states meeting their obligations.”
Africa Feels the Weight of the Decision
Africa will be hit hardest by the cuts, as the continent hosts more than half of all UN peacekeeping personnel. Missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), South Sudan (UNMISS), and Mali are expected to experience troop reductions or transitions into smaller, politically focused missions.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, peacekeepers have been a stabilizing force in regions plagued by militia violence and mass displacement. A drawdown could leave communities vulnerable to renewed attacks. The same applies to South Sudan, where UN forces have provided protection to hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians in camps since the civil war erupted in 2013.
Dr. Amina Diop, a peace and conflict expert at the African Centre for Security Studies, told the Associated Press that “in regions where governance remains weak, peacekeepers often serve as the only deterrent against violence. Their exit could reopen wounds that have barely healed and invite new cycles of revenge.”
Local Solutions and Long-Term Challenges
The UN has framed the downsizing as part of a broader effort to empower local peace initiatives. According to the Secretariat, some countries will transition from military operations to smaller offices that emphasize dialogue, conflict prevention, and reconciliation.
However, several analysts caution that these transitions require years of groundwork and sustained political stability to succeed. “You cannot replace boots on the ground with mediation offices overnight,” said Jean-Paul Mvemba, a regional security analyst based in Nairobi. “Local peace efforts are valuable, but they often depend on the sense of security that peacekeepers provide.”
Human Cost on the Ground
For civilians living in conflict zones, the withdrawal of peacekeepers carries real and immediate consequences. “When peacekeepers leave, the women and children become the first victims,” said Grace Lado, a civil society leader from South Sudan. “It is not just about soldiers leaving; it is about safety disappearing.”
Reports from humanitarian groups warn that sexual violence, forced recruitment, and displacement could increase in areas where peacekeepers have previously maintained order. Many fear that aid operations could also suffer, as UN missions often provide the logistical backbone for humanitarian relief efforts.
The Global Context
According to UN budget figures, peacekeeping operations currently cost around 6.5 billion US dollars annually, which is less than half of one percent of global military spending. Yet, the UN is facing a historic shortfall, partly due to economic pressures in donor countries and shifting foreign policy priorities.
The United States, which contributes about a quarter of the UN peacekeeping budget, has led the push for scaling down missions, arguing that some have become “open-ended” and “inefficient.” European donors have also tightened their budgets amid domestic economic strains, leaving the UN to make difficult choices.
Security experts warn that the financial reasoning overlooks the long-term cost of instability. In many regions, the departure of peacekeepers creates a vacuum that can be exploited by non-state actors, militias, or foreign mercenaries. This not only threatens local populations but can also spill over borders, fueling regional insecurity.
A Precarious Future
While the UN says it will prioritize missions with the highest levels of civilian risk, the impact of these cuts is likely to ripple far beyond the affected countries. Peacekeepers often serve as mediators, protectors, and facilitators of humanitarian access, roles that local governments or regional forces are rarely equipped to take on immediately.
A senior UN official, speaking anonymously to reporters, put it bluntly: “You can suspend peacekeeping funds, but you cannot suspend the conflicts they contain.”
The decision to reduce peacekeeping operations highlights a deeper crisis of global solidarity. As international priorities shift toward domestic politics and cost-cutting, the burden of maintaining peace is falling increasingly on nations least equipped to carry it. The move may save money in New York and Washington, but for families in Juba, Goma, or Gao, it could mean the return of fear, displacement, and uncertainty.
Sources: Associated Press, United Nations press release, African Centre for Security Studies.
