The UN Without the United States:  UN Peacekeeping

Why It Matters

U.S. withdrawal threatens the operational viability of UN peacekeeping, jeopardizing civilian protection in fragile states and reshaping the balance of global security responsibilities.

Key Takeaways

• UN peacekeeping faces funding crisis after US stops dues.
• Peacekeepers statistically reduce war recurrence, civilian deaths, and conflict length.
• Missions like Haiti, South Sudan, DRC struggle but still protect civilians.
• US a‑la‑carte funding undermines mission credibility and operational capacity.
• Without US support, nations must increase contributions or regional forces step in.

Summary

The panel discussion, hosted by Carnegie’s Stuart Patrick, examined the growing crisis in United Nations peacekeeping as the United States halts its assessed contributions, which fund roughly a quarter of the peacekeeping budget. The conversation highlighted how peacekeeping, a practice not envisioned in the UN Charter, has evolved into a multidimensional, often “chapter six‑and‑a‑half” operation that now faces both strategic and financial headwinds.

Research cited by Professor Lise Mourjé‑Howard shows that peacekeepers consistently improve negotiation outcomes, shorten wars, curb spillover, and most importantly, reduce civilian and combatant deaths—the strongest statistical correlation in international relations literature. Eugene Chen underscored that the U.S. accounts for 26.1% of assessed peacekeeping dues, and its recent refusal to pay has forced the UN Secretariat to repatriate about 25% of military and police contingents, eroding situational awareness and civilian‑protection capacity.

Panelists referenced on‑the‑ground realities: Haiti’s unprecedented gang‑suppression force, South Sudan’s contested mandate renewal, the DRC’s renewed mission amid rebel activity, and Mali’s shift to a regional African force after UN troops withdrew. Chen described the Trump administration’s “a‑la‑carte” funding as a transactional approach that weakens the political legitimacy of missions, while Forti warned that ad‑hoc U.S. support could embolden spoilers and diminish host‑government cooperation.

The discussion concluded that without a reliable U.S. financial anchor, the UN must either secure higher contributions from other member states or delegate responsibilities to regional organizations, a transition that carries risks for mission coherence and civilian safety. The future of peacekeeping hinges on redesigning mandates to be more nimble, cost‑effective, and resilient to great‑power disengagement.

Original Description

UN peacekeeping faces an existential crisis. Despite a dramatic upsurge in violent conflict globally, no new UN peacekeeping operations have been authorized in over a decade, and multidimensional missions featuring blue helmets have lost their vogue. The Trump administration has declared the United States would no longer pay its annually assessed dues for peacekeeping, a legally binding obligation under the UN Charter, potentially depriving the world body of a quarter of its budget. At the same time, it has agreed to fund specialized operations, including in Haiti, Lebanon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on an à la carte basis.

Peacekeeping has always been an imperfect instrument, hobbled by sometimes unrealistic mandates, shifting geopolitical support, recurrent liquidity crises, and occasional scandals involving peacekeeping troops themselves. Still, it remains the most cost-effective tool to reduce death and conflict, including in circumstances where the United States has no desire to put boots on the ground. It has saved—and continues to save—lives around the world, from Kosovo to Liberia to South Sudan.

What does the future of peacekeeping look like—something lighter, or different altogether, and what risks would that pose? What are the costs of losing U.S. support, financial or otherwise? Will other countries reinvest in traditional UN peacekeeping and can regional organizations help pick up the slack? And how can peacekeeping evolve to be more nimble and relevant?

To shed light on these and other questions, please join Carnegie’s Global Order and Institution Program director and senior fellow Stewart Patrick for a conversation with Eugene Chen, non-resident advisor at the International Peace Institute, Lise Howard, professor at Georgetown University, and Dan Forti, head of UN Affairs at International Crisis Group.