‘We Cannot Keep Peace When There Is No Peace to Keep,’ Secretary-General Says, Calling for Reset of United Nations Peace Operations

'We Cannot Keep Peace When There Is No Peace to Keep,' Secretary-General Says, Calling for Reset of United Nations Peace Operations

Following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres' remarks, as delivered, to the General Assembly, on the review of United Nations peace operations, in New York today:

United Nations peace operations are a critical form of multilateral action. They help defuse crises, stop conflict, sustain ceasefires and protect civilians. In lands stained by bloodshed, they create space for dialogue and open pathways to peace. By supporting peace processes. Advancing the implementation of negotiated settlements. Accompanying complex political transitions. And laying the foundations for long-term recovery.

United Nations missions have helped consolidate peace from Cambodia to El Salvador, from Timor-Leste to the Central African Republic and beyond. Our work on the border dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria is another case in point. Through the good offices and peacemaking, we helped the parties find common ground on how to implement the ruling of the International Court of Justice. Later, we deployed a special political mission that helped demarcate the boundary and ultimately end the border dispute.

Our approaches to peace operations have evolved over the past eight decades, as conflicts changed [and] possibilities for collective action fluctuated. Now they must adapt again to dramatic new realities.

Geopolitics is in flux. Power is more diffuse and worldviews are more diverse. New poles of influence are emerging. And new lines of contestation are taking shape. We are witnessing a resurgence of conflict between States. And an intensification of internal conflicts - now increasingly internationalized, more protracted and harder to resolve. The number of conflicts is at the highest level since 1945. And [the] human cost is mounting, with more battle-related deaths in the last 5 years than in the 25 before.

Meanwhile, the nature of conflict is rapidly changing. We see the increasing military use of drones and the looming prospect of autonomous lethal weapons, powered by artificial intelligence. The growing involvement of transnational criminal networks. A wider range of State and non-State actors getting their hands on deadly technologies. The renewed threat of nuclear weapons. The frequent targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. And a mounting sense of impunity, as parties violate international law and States ignore their Charter obligations.

At the same time, comprehensive peace agreements are less common. The share of conflicts settled through a peace agreement is the lowest in decades. These developments present new challenges and place new demands on United Nations peace operations.

Over the past three decades, our missions were deployed primarily to support conflict parties in reaching and implementing a comprehensive peace agreement after a civil war. But today such frameworks are increasingly rare, harder to achieve and more fragile. All too often we see political negotiations stall, violence flaring up, civilians attacked and peace operations targeted. And while missions are asked to contain the consequences of conflict, the parties themselves face little pressure to resolve it - and sometimes external actors even contribute to the continuation of conflicts, as we see in Sudan.

Geopolitical polarization has eroded consensus about when to deploy peace operations, what they should and should not do and what constitutes success. Member States increasingly differ not only on how to respond to threats to peace, but on how those threats should be understood in the first place. This can result in mandates that lack sufficient clarity and missions that lack unified support. We have also seen peacekeeping budgets slashed and the number of peacekeeping troops and police officers greatly reduced.

In the Pact for the Future, Member States called on me to conduct a review on the future of all forms of UN peace operations and how they can adapt to enable more agile and tailored responses to existing, emerging and future peace and security challenges. The report of that review has now been circulated to all Member States, and I am pleased to share some comments today on its findings and recommendations.

The review draws on extensive consultations with Member States, our missions, the wider United Nations system, regional partners and civil society. Throughout these discussions, we heard a crystal-clear refrain: UN peace operations are indispensable tools for maintaining international peace and security - but to be more effective, they must adapt to new realities.

The review considers, for the first time, the full spectrum of United Nations peace operations. This includes a diverse set of special political missions: The small office of a special envoy working to broker peace in Sudan. A regional office with a preventive diplomacy mandate helping address cross-boundary threats in Central Asia. Sanctions panels providing the Security Council with information on compliance to [the] measures it imposes, such as against ISIL, or Da'esh, or Al-Qaida. A mission with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to rid Syria of these senseless tools of terror. And a broadly mandated mission seeking to promote political unity and a road map to peace in Libya.

It also addresses different types of peacekeeping operations: Missions monitoring ceasefires or the separation of conflict parties, from Cyprus to the Middle East, and multidimensional operations working to ensure stability, support political processes and protect civilians, as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or South Sudan.

This spectrum is rich and adaptable. It provides a wide set of tools for the Security Council to draw from as it confronts each situation. The review recalls the lessons of our past work, our previous reviews and our reform processes. And it reaffirms the principles and considerations that guide UN peace operations across diverse settings.

These include clearly defined outcomes. Pursuit of political solutions. Stronger partnership with host States. Impartiality and respect for the Charter and international law. Shared responsibility among Member States. Closer cooperation with regional organizations. And a whole-of-UN response to help sustain peace.

The review also highlights the need for agile, tailored responses. And crucially, it calls for a reset in how we think about and use peace operations. Let me outline what this reset requires.

First, a sharper focus on peacemaking. That means renewed emphasis on preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and the pacific settlement of disputes. And it means strengthening the good offices of the Secretary-General, her or his envoys, and the Secretariat.

We have seen in Colombia, for example, how our good offices engagement supported the peace process, helped usher in the peace agreement and paved the way for a dedicated special political mission to support the parties with its implementation. All of our peace operations, and the political processes they are designed to support, require the strong and unified backing of UN Member States.

The Secretariat, in turn, must actively work to bridge differences and support the Security Council and Member States in building a greater common understanding of the challenges and the options available to address them. Peacemaking is a core task of most peace operations, but it is not the work of missions alone. We must make better use of [the] expertise and capacities we already have at Headquarters and deploy them to support peace processes and open political space.

For example, as part of my UN80 initiative, our special political missions supporting the Geneva International Discussions and the Cyprus good offices work have been reconfigured to achieve a leaner and more cost-effective structure, with more direct support from Headquarters. We must also make fuller use of our special political missions with regional mandates and consider how to expand the existing network of regional offices and envoys. Their presence can engage early, work closely with regional organizations and help prevent disputes from escalating into wider conflicts, including between States.

But let's be honest: No peace operation, and no political process supported by the United Nations, can succeed without solid and cohesive support from Member States.

Second, stronger partnerships with host States. Peace cannot be brought in from abroad. It must be built from the ground up - through close cooperation with host States. Peace operations can only be effective if their mandates support the national actors who ultimately hold the key to sustainable peace.

The review outlines ways to strengthen these partnerships, including through structured consultations among the Security Council, host States, troop- and police-contributing countries and the Secretariat.

Together, we must build a shared vision of what each mission can achieve throughout its life cycle.

Third, focused and adaptable mandates. It's time to match our ambitions with reality. Peace operations should be focused on areas where they hold a clear, comparative advantage - particularly politics and security and, where mandated, the protection of civilians.

Missions must also remain responsive to realities on the ground. When circumstances change significantly, mandates must evolve accordingly. The Secretariat has an important role to play in helping the Security Council ensure missions are adaptable. This includes providing regular and frank assessments of how missions are delivering on their mandates. Proposing options for better aligning their mandates with realities on the ground. And presenting transition plans and exit strategies where appropriate.

This must be planned early, and updated regularly, to ensure that gains are consolidated. I am encouraged by progress made in prioritizing mandates, and I thank the Security Council for its efforts on this front.

But let me be clear: Peacekeeping operations should only be deployed when a peace agreement or at least a robust ceasefire is in place. We cannot keep peace when there is no peace to keep.

And, so, fourth, a clear division of labour. Helping societies move from war to peace is one of the toughest tasks we face. It requires the full and sustained engagement of the wider United Nations system and the international community. And it requires peace operations to work hand in hand with the broader UN country team, drawing on each entity's strengths and avoiding duplication.

In certain cases, mandated tasks can be better delivered by agencies, funds and programmes with the relevant expertise and presence.

This networked approach builds on my UN80 report - Shifting Paradigms: United to Deliver - in calling for other UN entities, where possible, to lead programmatic work for which they are best equipped.

Beyond improving mandate delivery, this will make mission transitions smoother and more sustainable - for example, when mandated tasks need to be handed over to the host State and to the UN country team.

Fifth, more agile operations. To be truly agile, peace operations must be supported by flexible administrative frameworks, clear chains of command and stronger planning and operational processes. And they must preserve one of our greatest strengths: a skilled, diverse global workforce. That means protecting the progress we have made and accelerating the meaningful participation of women across all aspects of UN peace operations.

Sixth, greater cost-efficiency and accountability. Responsible stewardship of resources is essential. But delivering on our commitment to efficiency and effectiveness across all peace operations requires a sharper focus on impact and results. And we must continue to hold all personnel fully accountable for their conduct and performance - at all times and without exception.

The world's most vulnerable people have placed their trust in the United Nations.

We must keep earning that trust every day - and never betray it.

Seventh, readiness and technological capability. Member States have made it clear they expect the UN to act swiftly and deploy tailored responses across the full spectrum of peace operations. Our readiness to deliver requires sustained, collective investments in our civilian and specialized uniformed capacities.

We must preserve and maintain the UN's hard-won experience and expertise, and capabilities in the service of peace. We must also strengthen the preparedness and resilience of our missions. By closing our technology and capability gaps. Exploring options for more mobile mission configurations. And insisting on the safety and security of our field personnel.

I commend the dedication and courage of all who have served in UN peace operations.

I honour our dear colleagues who have given their lives in the pursuit of peace. And I welcome the wide co-sponsorship and unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 2823 (2026).

Attacks against UN peacekeepers must stop, and perpetrators must be held to account. No impunity. No exceptions.

Our civilian staff, too, often work under significant threats. Just last week, we marked the anniversary of the Canal Hotel bombing in Baghdad, in which 22 staff serving in our special political mission in Iraq were killed in 2003 - a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made in our work for peace.

Finally, stronger global-regional partnerships. The review recognizes that we support and operate within a much larger ecosystem of actors, each with distinct mandates and comparative advantages. Effective networked multilateralism depends on strong partnerships and the United Nations-African Union (AU) partnership is a prime example.

Security Council resolution 2719 (2023) established a framework for predictable financing of AU-led peace support operations authorized by the Council through assessed contributions. It is essential for Council Members to reach agreement on materializing this landmark commitment.

And in some circumstances, peace enforcement operations led by regional organizations or coalitions of the willing might be justified. Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, peace enforcement may involve a range of coercive measures, including military force, undertaken with the authorization of the Security Council to maintain or restore international peace and security. Unlike UN peace operations, enforcement action does not necessarily require the strategic consent of the conflict parties.

But all such efforts should be embedded in a comprehensive approach that prioritizes political solutions, addresses conflict drivers and grievances, and is anchored in a national commitment towards durable peace. And there must be full compliance with the UN Charter and international humanitarian and human rights law, and accountability to the Security Council.

Without safeguards, securitized responses could reinforce the very dynamics they seek to overcome. The Secretariat is ready to support these safeguards and provide the necessary expertise and political [and] technical assistance. Regarding peace enforcement operations, in some circumstances UN missions can provide a range of support building on our past experiences.

The United Nations Charter provides the foundation for collective action. Over decades, Member States have built and adapted a diverse array of peace operations to meet evolving challenges. But peace operations are, above all, political instruments.

Their success depends on how well their mandates are suited to needs on the ground, the will of the parties, and the level of political support from the Security Council and Member States. Lasting impact requires Member States, the United Nations, the host country and international partners to work together in a spirit of shared responsibility and common purpose.

I urge Member States to draw on this review as they consider options for adapting UN peace operations. To advance its recommendations in relevant intergovernmental bodies. And to invest in peace.

I express my sincere gratitude to Member States for supporting this review process. And I thank you for helping to make UN peace operations more effective, cost-efficient and more impactful.

We must adapt to a changing world. And together, we must find the will - and the resources - to forge pathways to peace.