Funding gaps hit UN, AU, ECOWAS and others as multilateral peacekeeping operations fall 50%

* Concerns mount over possible spike in global conflict as UN-backed efforts face collapse

Ndubuisi Francis in Abuja

There is growing worry that global conflict could rise as geopolitical tensions, political pressure and funding crises threaten the viability of multilateral peacekeeping by the United Nations (UN) and regional organisations such as the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Organisation for Security and Co‑operation in Europe (OSCE).

A new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlights a roughly 50 per cent drop in personnel deployed for multilateral peacekeeping operations over the past decade, as regional organisations struggle with underfunding and deadlock over deployment decisions.

SIPRI, founded in 1966, is an independent international institute that researches global conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament.

The report shows that the number of personnel in peace operations at the end of 2025 fell to its lowest level in at least 25 years.

As of 31 December 2025, no fewer than 78,633 international personnel were deployed for peace operations, 49 per cent fewer than in 2016 and the lowest level since at least the year 2000.

Although numbers have declined throughout the decade, 2025 recorded the sharpest year‑on‑year drop, by 17 per cent.

The report notes that 58 multilateral peace operations were active in 34 countries or territories during 2025, three fewer than in 2024.

Sub‑Saharan Africa and Europe each hosted 18 missions, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 14, the Americas five, and Asia and Oceania three. Nearly three quarters (73 per cent) of personnel were deployed with just five missions, four of them in sub‑Saharan Africa.

It points out that countries were unwilling to fund and could not agree on UN peace operations in 2025, citing several examples.

A crisis in funding for UN peace operations is noted, as major donors failed to pay their commitments on time or in full. In July 2025, UN peacekeeping operations faced a shortfall of $2 billion—more than 35 per cent of their total $5.6 billion budget for 2024–25—forcing several to make deep cuts to personnel numbers.

In the UN Security Council, hardline demands and veto threats from permanent members complicated decisions on renewing operation mandates.

For example, despite frequent violations of the 2024 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, the United States demanded the termination of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) during mandate renewal talks in August 2025.

In a compromise, the Security Council voted to renew the mission for a final time until December 2026.

The Security Council authorised the deployment of an expanded security force staffed by an ad hoc coalition, the Gang Suppression Force, in Haiti, and created a UN Support Office to provide logistical and operational support.

“This came after a US‑backed initiative in 2024 to transform the Multinational Security Support Mission in Haiti (MSS) into a UN‑led and UN‑funded peacekeeping operation stalled mainly because of opposition from China and Russia in the UN Security Council,” the report said.

It observes that there are no viable alternatives to UN‑led conflict management.

While no new UN‑led peacekeeping operations have been mandated since 2014, several have been launched by regional organisations. However, developments in 2025 underline the limitations of regionally‑led missions.

The SIPRI report states that, like the UN, regional organisations such as the AU, ECOWAS and OSCE also struggled with underfunding and deadlocked decision‑making on peace operations—examples include Sudan and Ukraine—due to geopolitical rivalries.

Commenting, Director of the SIPRI Peace Operations and Conflict Management Programme, Dr. Jär van der Lijn, said: “If things continue in this way, we could see a dramatic weakening of multilateral conflict management and the near‑complete sidelining of institutions like the United Nations, due to a perfect storm of funding, political and geopolitical factors.”

“The result is likely to be more conflicts, and these conflicts are likely to have even graver impacts on civilians as states abandon long‑established norms.”

Senior Researcher in the SIPRI Peace Operations and Conflict Management Programme, Dr. Claudia Pfeifer Cruz, observed that regional organisations like the AU, ECOWAS and OSCE lack key capabilities for successful, integrated peacebuilding, while they are also plagued by funding shortfalls and an inability to reach agreement like the UN.

As UN‑led conflict management recedes, it is leaving a growing gap that alternative models are unable to fill, he said.

Despite the difficulties, there is evidence that support for multilateral conflict management in principle remains broad and strong.

For example, more than 130 UN member states discussed how to secure the future of UN peacekeeping at the May 2025 Berlin Peacekeeping Ministerial.

Also, new peace and ceasefire agreements often include plans to deploy a multilateral peace operation, including the October 2025 peace agreement for Gaza.

However, in the UN Security Council and in regional bodies, proposals for new or reconfigured operations have often foundered due to political divisions, host‑state resistance and issues over financing.