S/PV.9991 Security Council

I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of the Council, to His Excellency Mr. Eloy Alfaro de Alba, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Panama, for his service as President of the Council for the month of August. I am sure I speak for all members of the Council in expressing deep appreciation to Ambassador Alfaro de Alba and his team for the great diplomatic skill with which they conducted the Council’s business last month. Adoption of the agenda Maintenance of international peace and security The future of peace operations: key issues, opportunities and challenges in the context of the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations Letter dated 2 September 2025 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (S/2025/547)

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Albania, Angola, Australia, Austria, Bah­ rain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guate­ mala, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Viet Nam to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting: Mr. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations; Ms. Rosemary DiCarlo, Under- Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs; Mr. Thomas Zahneisen, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission; and Ms. Jenna Russo, Director of Research and Head of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I also invite His Excellency Mr. Stavros Lambrinidis, Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations; and Mr. Cherinet Alem Hariffo, Permanent Observer of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2025/547, which contains the text of a letter dated 2 September 2025 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept note on the item under consideration. I now give the floor to Mr. Lacroix. Let me first sincerely thank Member States, civil society and others who contributed to the review of the future of peace operations. We have received more than 60 submissions. Each submission is being carefully reviewed. Extensive consultation and transparency underpin this review process and, along with our partner in this process, the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, we will continue to ensure opportunities for engagement in the coming months. When I spoke to the Council in July (see S/PV.9969), I highlighted the important role peacekeeping missions play in supporting lasting political solutions to end conflict, as well as the indispensable role of the Security Council and the power it has when it speaks and acts collectively in support of a political process. Peacekeeping is not a luxury. It is a lifeline for millions who count on it for a future without fear. More than 60,000 peacekeepers representing 115 Member States bravely carry out its vital work in 11 missions, making peacekeeping one of the United Nations’ largest and most visible activities in the field. I salute the women and men deployed in our missions who, on a daily basis, make a difference by protecting civilians, clearing mines and explosive remnants of war, patrolling villages and towns, monitoring ceasefires and mediating conflicts at the local level and preventing conflicts from spilling out of control. I pay tribute to those peacekeepers who paid the ultimate price. As we look at the world, achieving lasting political solutions seems increasingly challenging. The level of active conflict has risen to alarming numbers, with 61 active conflicts in 2024, the highest number since 1946, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Conflicts have become protracted, involving more actors and often proxy forces, making negotiated solutions more difficult to achieve. This does not mean we will not continue to pursue them. In such an uncertain future, we are likely to see more civilians at risk and in need of protection. It means the need for peace operations increases, potentially alongside other types of operations, including peace enforcement. It also means the contexts for deployment may be more uncertain and full success harder to achieve. Yet, as we have started the second quarter of the twenty-first century, rather than retreat we must use the expertise and valuable lessons from nearly eight decades of peacekeeping to use this valuable tool to respond to the legitimate expectations that the peoples hold towards the fulfilment of the Charter of the United Nations. But we need not wait for the peace operations review to continue proactively doing our utmost to strengthen the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping. Before speaking further to what is needed for the future of peace operations, I would like to briefly convey a few examples of what we already achieved this year through our implementation of Action for Peacekeeping Plus (A4P+). First, peacekeeping missions continue to promote political solutions to conflict at the regional, national and local levels. For example, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic is supporting the Government to take forward the 19 April agreement between the Government and two signatory armed groups that returned to the peace process by supporting the disarmament and demobilization of the Retour, réclamation et rehabilitation, the 3R movement, and the Unité pour la paix en Centrafrique, the UPC movement, thereby marking a major milestone in the continuing peace process. Thirdly, to ensure we have the right capabilities and mindset, we continue to take forward the uniformed gender parity strategy. All categories of personnel deployed in the field continue to meet their strategy targets, except for military contingents. We will continue to work on that particular category. Recognizing the importance of continuous improvement we recently conducted a review of the strategy. The review identified priority actions to take forward, including expanding the network of uniformed women peacekeepers and supporting uniformed leadership cadres. I would like to take this opportunity to request that Member States put forward more female candidates for senior military appointments. We are also refining and augmenting specialized training. The Triangular Partnership Programme added new training modules on countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosive hazards. The Programme and the Mine Actions Service (MAS) are also mainstreaming counter-IED considerations across engineering and medical courses. This is only one demonstration out of many of how far we have come in systematically mitigating the threat of explosive ordnance. This speaks to my fourth point, on improving our accountability to peacekeepers, including to improve their safety and security. Peacekeeping operations, often working with the MAS, are mitigating the risks of explosive ordnance to peacekeepers and local populations. In South Sudan, for example, MAS cleared approximately 220 anti-personnel mines, more than a dozen anti-vehicle mines and nearly 500 cluster munitions, and more than 5,200 other explosive ordnances in the area of responsibility of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan. These clearance operations freed up approximately 2.6 million square metres, including agricultural areas and key roadways for local communities. Fifthly, we continue to do our utmost to uphold the highest standards of conduct and discipline. We continue pre-deployment training on conduct and discipline for all uniformed personnel, as well as in-mission training. We provide avenues for victims to come forward, investigate allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse and, when allegations are substantiated, we take the requisite action. From November 2024 to April 2025, the most recent six-month reporting period, we repatriated 17 uniformed personnel on disciplinary grounds and, together with concerned Member States, we have also actively sought solutions to address the too many pending paternity and child support claims so that children fathered by peacekeepers and their mothers can have closure and assistance. Given time considerations, I do not want to be exhaustive in my remarks today on our most recent progress strengthening peacekeeping. Rather, in the coming days, we will provide Member States with a comprehensive report on recent progress and challenges implementing A4P+. Turning back to our vision for the future of peacekeeping, what I believe is required, and what many Council members have echoed during the consultation process, is a United Nations that is capable and ready to respond through missions that are adaptable and tailored to the needs on the ground, guided by strong political strategies and leveraging the tools, capacities and expertise of the Organization and its partners. Based on Council members’ submissions, and in furtherance of the ongoing reform process of Action for Peacekeeping Plus, I would like to highlight the following. The availability and sources of data that can be brought together to more effectively assess situations on the ground and project possible responses based on lessons learned has notably increased. We must harness the capacities of digital technologies and artificial intelligence to support the analysis of data, as well as to assess the effectiveness of our responses through time. Pursuing political solutions to conflict, protecting civilians, supporting the strengthening of accountable governance entities, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the advancement of the women and peace and security agenda should remain priorities. This must be accompanied by our sustained and uncompromising efforts to uphold the Secretary-General’s zero-tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse. United Nations peace operations are a manifestation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to uphold the dignity and worth of the human person. Wherever our peace operations are deployed, even where we do not have an explicit protection mandate, populations rightly expect to be protected by the United Nations. That protection comes in many forms. From the presence and engagement by military or police peacekeepers to political dialogue, advocacy and reporting by civilian staff, national and international alike. The United Nations ability to deliver on the imperative to protect people is very often the benchmark by which we are judged. But we should not be indefinitely responsible for the protection of populations. This is why the pursuit of political solutions must remain at the heart of what we do and how we can more sustainably and cost-effectively save succeeding generations from war. This reality carries important implications as we reflect on the future of all forms of peace operations — from how we plan, design, mandate and resource operations to how we implement their mandates on the ground. Secondly, we must continue working to demonstrate the difference we make on the ground through the results we deliver. We need to enhance how we monitor and report on the impact of peacekeeping, including wherever possible by identifying measurable targets. A4P+ monitoring, for example, is measuring and reporting on our efforts to improve the effectiveness of peacekeeping. Tools such as the Comprehensive Planning and Performance Assessment System, or CPAS, are also notable by measuring progress towards implementing Council mandates. But we must go further by conducting population-based perception surveys, which will bring us as close as possible to measuring impact through the systematic evaluation of the views of our beneficiaries. Actually, some missions have already engaged in those surveys. Thirdly, conflicts are fluid situations, and priorities and needs will change. Such changes must be monitored and analysed on an ongoing basis by all stakeholders so that mission mandates and operations can change accordingly. This requires greater flexibility in how missions are managed and resourced and how they can use their resources, including from a United Nations human resources’ point of view. Fourthly, we recognize that complex situations such as the ones in which we operate require multifaceted responses. This means that a multiplicity of actors might be needed to work in synergy to achieve the highest degree of impact, either These priorities will help prepare peacekeeping for the future, and they also align with the workstreams under UN80, in which, within the Secretariat, we are seeking efficien­ cies, reviewing the implementation of mandates and exploring programme realignment. To advance durable political solutions that enable peacekeeping to withdraw without a relapse into conflict requires the strong, unified and ongoing support of the Security Council through the adoption of clear, prioritized mandates, active political engagement and statements of support. These must be matched by the payment of assessed contributions in full and on time. Our ability to keep the peace requires it. Together, let us seize this moment to shape peace operations that are fit for the future.

I thank Mr. Lacroix for his briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. DiCarlo. Ms. DiCarlo: I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting on the review of United Nations peace operations, mandated by the Pact for the Future. Since the Council last addressed this topic in July (see S/PV.9969), we have continued our extensive consultations process. More than 40 Member States responded to our call for written inputs and offered ideas and reflections. More than 20 civil society organizations have contributed inputs so far. This work continues, with more engagements to come. One message is clear in these contributions: for eight decades, United Nations peace operations have been an essential instrument of multilateral action for peace. They have enabled the United Nations to deliver effective responses to critical peace and security challenges. They have saved lives. The spectrum of these operations is broad and diverse: it ranges from special envoys, regional offices and expert panels supporting Sanctions Committees to peacebuilding and electoral support initiatives. And it includes observer and verification missions and multidimensional peacekeeping operations that combine troops, police and civilian capabilities. In many contexts, different types of missions have been co-deployed to provide the mix of peace support needed. Today, our missions operate in an environment marked by increasing geopolitical fragmentation. Conflicts have become more internationalized, with the involvement of global and/or regional actors influencing their internal dynamics. Meanwhile, non-State armed groups continue to proliferate. Many use terrorist tactics or espouse unclear political objectives, challenging traditional peacemaking approaches. New technologies, from artificial intelligence to drones, are being weaponized on an industrial scale, increasing both the lethality of violence and the likelihood of escalation. And transnational drivers, such as organized crime, are now a regular facet of the conflict landscape. These trends have made peacemaking and conflict resolution harder to achieve today. Opinions diverge among Member States, especially within the Security Council and among host States, on how and to what end peace operations should be deployed and what the conditions are for their success. That is why a review of the future of United Nations peace operations is timely. Special political missions have been at the forefront of the Organization’s response. From supporting decolonization in Libya and facilitating peace agreements in Central America to helping South Africa organize its first post- apartheid elections, these missions have supported close to 100 countries across all regions of the world. They have helped end wars. In Nepal, between 2007 and 2011, the United Nations Mission in Nepal helped transform a ceasefire between the Government and the Communist Party of Nepal into a permanent, sustainable peace and political transition. They have allowed Member States, and the Security Council itself, to find common ground and advance political solutions even at times of high political tensions and deep ideological divisions. During the Cold War, for example, shuttle diplomacy by the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Afghanistan between Moscow, Washington, Islamabad and Kabul led to indirect negotiations and eventually laid the ground for the 1988 Geneva Accords, which ended the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. In order to inform this review of peace operations, we have analysed the history and practice of special political missions deployed since the creation of the United Nations. Their experiences revealed the following. First, many of our missions were time-bound and targeted. The focus was on a political task, without additional activities overextending the mission’s mandate and focus. Secondly, most missions were nimble, easy to deploy, economical to maintain, without major overheads and costs. Thirdly, their mandates were often written concisely and directly, sometimes one or two sentences only in a Security Council resolution. They provided the missions with clear directions, while allowing a degree of flexibility in implementation. Fourthly, missions took great advantage of existing capabilities at Headquarters, from senior officials to substantive experts. These were used as deployable assets, leveraging their political knowledge and diplomatic experience. And fifthly, missions were proactive in using the Secretary-General’s good offices both through his immediate office and that of his representatives and the Secretariat. Based on our analysis of past deployments, recent United Nations reform efforts in peace and security, and consultations held thus far, we see three important priorities for designing special political missions today. First, most of our missions today are deployed in the absence of a comprehensive peace agreement. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, peace agreements were the foundation for the work of peace operations. They encompassed the ambitious commitments that parties to conflict undertook across multiple areas, from electoral and constitutional processes to security sector reform and transitional justice. Our peace operations, in turn, could be equally ambitious as were, for example, our missions in Cambodia and Timor-Leste. Today, comprehensive peace agreements are the exception, not the norm. Our missions are often deployed in politically volatile situations, sometimes amid ongoing civil wars. In such situations, the initial goals of our mission should be more limited, such as preventing a deterioration of violence, achieving a ceasefire, or helping a fragile incipient peace process get off the ground. At the same time, they could retain flexibility and adaptability to scale up and seize opportunities at a later stage to advance more ambitious political solutions. Thirdly, the diversity of situations in which our missions are asked to deploy today means that it is essential for mandates to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches. Accordingly, the Secretariat must provide the Security Council with varied and realistic options for the design of new operations. For this purpose, we will examine how to further improve our planning capacities, enhance creativity and innovation in reconfiguring our missions, inform mandate renewals and improve transitions. There is one fundamental fact that no review, no matter how extensive or ambitious, can change. The failure of weak implementation of mandates is often related to the lack of political support for such operations in the countries where they are deployed, among regional countries and sometimes in the Council itself. We will therefore need to engage with a laser-like focus and bring the emphasis back to the political questions at the heart of each conflict and find multilateral responses to them. We look forward to working with Council members to strengthen the effectiveness of our missions and to further enhance trust in their work.

I thank Ms. DiCarlo for her briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Zahneisen. Mr. Zahneisen: I thank you, Mr. President, first of all, for convening this important meeting today. It is an honour to brief you today in my capacity as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission. I welcome this opportunity to reflect on how the Peacebuilding Commission has supported United Nations peace operations, but also to highlight some of the best practices that demonstrate the added value of a peacebuilding perspective throughout the peace continuum. Over the past years, the Peacebuilding Commission has provided a unique plat­ form for supporting nationally led and nationally owned peacebuilding initiatives and projects, for building consensus around them, for mobilizing necessary resources and, more generally, sustaining political attention for countries emerging from conflict. By convening a wide range of stakeholders, including regional organizations, international financial institutions and regional development banks, alongside relevant United Nations entities, the Peacebuilding Commission has sought to gather sustained political and financial support to host States throughout the implementation and the drawdown of peacekeeping and special political missions. In contexts such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Burundi, the Commission has facilitated close coordination between peacekeeping operations, United Nations country teams, international financial institutions and regional actors. These experiences illustrate how the Peacebuilding Commission can help bridge the political, security and development dimensions of peacebuilding, ensuring that transitions from mission settings to long-term United Nations engagements are inclusive, nationally owned and sustainable. The Peacebuilding Commission’s work has also demonstrated the importance of accompanying peace operations with peacebuilding assistance. In the Central African Republic, for example, the Commission has worked on the peacebuilding priorities of the country by helping to ensure that security responses are complemented by institution-building, reconciliation and development strategies. The Peacebuilding Allow me to emphasize three good practices that we encourage stakeholders to uphold. The first concerns national ownership and inclusivity. This requires continuous support of nationally led and owned peacebuilding processes by engaging with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that peace operations are firmly anchored in national priorities and, following mission’s departures, that national actors are adequately equipped to undertake the ensuing responsibilities. The second concerns partnerships and coherence. To strengthen a coherent United Nations system-wide peacebuilding response, a continued effort in promoting coordination between the Commission and the Security Council, but also with the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and regional organizations, must remain a priority. And finally, the third concerns the importance of sustained attention and resources. It is critical, we believe, that after the transition of a mission, situations are kept on the international agenda to avoid a relapse into conflict. Where appropriate and based on the consent of the country concerned, the Peacebuilding Commission stands ready to offer its contribution to sustained efforts beyond the lifecycle of a mission. In conclusion, integrating a peacebuilding perspective is aimed at ensuring that hard-won gains of peace operations can be preserved, while at the same time addressing root causes and drivers of conflict through inclusive governance, socioeconomic resilience, transitional justice and reconciliation. As the Council considers the future of United Nations peace operations, I want to assure you the Peacebuilding Commission stands ready to contribute its political accompaniment, convening power and advisory role. By aligning peacebuilding efforts based on the principle of national ownership and leadership, we can, we believe, make peace operations not only more agile and tailored but also more sustainable, effective and impactful.

I thank Mr. Zahneisen for his briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Russo. Ms. Russo: I thank you, Mr. President, for inviting the International Peace Institute to participate in today’s discussion on the future of peace operations. I sometimes like to jest that throughout my nearly 17 years of working on United Nations peacekeeping, we seem to always be discussing how United Nations peace operations are at a turning point. However, this time, I think we really mean it. The past few years have presented the biggest inflection point that we have seen since the 1990s. The combination of changing conflict dynamics, the United Nations crisis of legitimacy in some field settings, geopolitics and financial constraints have required deep introspection and reconsideration of the role we want not only for peace operations but for the broader United Nations peace and security pillar and indeed the entire United Nations system. This process of reflection is important. We should question the way that peace operations work and their effectiveness in achieving the tenets of the Charter of the United Nations. At the same time, we are living in a In this context, I want to offer three points of reflection related to United Nations peace operations and broader reform of the United Nations peace and security architecture, particularly in the light of the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations. First, we should situate the current crisis within the broader history of United Nations peace operations. In 2022 and 2023, amid the riots in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the closure of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, there were many voices predicting the end of United Nations peacekeeping. Some suggested that all robust uniformed presences could simply be shifted to regional actors, and many have cited the fact that the United Nations has not deployed any new peacekeeping operations in more than a decade and that the number of United Nations peacekeepers deployed globally has declined. These factors are taken by some to mean the final demise of United Nations peacekeeping. Even among more moderate voices, there is a sense that large-scale missions have fallen out of favour and should be replaced by lightweight or modular approaches. However, in taking a broader historical view, it is important to note that United Nations peace operations have always been deployed in ebbs and flows, and the current decline that we are seeing is neither unprecedented nor likely permanent. The United Nations has experienced declines in peace operations deployments at multiple points in its history, often owing to crises in the field or growing contestation over the size or cost of missions or the ambition of mission mandates. After the United Nations deployed the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC), its first mission to the Congo in the 1960s, Member States reared back from peacekeeping, owing in part to ONUC’s size and cost and the ambition of its mandate. In the 23 years that followed, the Security Council only authorized five missions, four of which were continuations of previous missions. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the end of the cold war ushered in a new wave of missions, with 22 United Nations peace operations deployed. Yet just a few years later, crises in Angola, Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia created a crisis of confidence in peacekeeping. The number of United Nations peacekeepers dropped from nearly 80,000 in 1994 to only 12,000 in 1999. The trend reversed again in the early 2000s, with a new slate of missions and an eventual historical high in the number of peacekeepers deployed. In his analysis of the decline of peace operations in the 1970s and 1980s, Paul Williams attributes the trend to geopolitics, low levels of consensus within the Council, divisions among the broader United Nations membership, financial crises and a sense among some Western countries that the United Nations was becoming increasingly irrelevant — all factors that sound strikingly similar to today’s dynamics. The lesson in this is that what we are facing is not unprecedented. To be sure, there are important differences between the dynamics of today and those of the 1980s. However, we must avoid a mindset of presentism, in which we fail to consider broader historical trends and how they can help us to anticipate what may come in the future. Specifically, I would caution against deterministic thinking that supposes that we have reached the end of one era of designing peace operations in favour of another. Even talk of reverting to so-called traditional forms of peace operations is ahistorical, as peace operations have never taken a single form. They have always been diverse and fluid, which is their strength and a sign of their adaptability. This lesson has important implications for UN80 and efforts to increase the United Nations efficiency. In reforming the United Nations, policymakers must take care not to eliminate parts of the system that could be essential for addressing the crises of tomorrow. One of the United Nations comparative advantages is its strong Secondly, while United Nations reform and efforts to improve the practice of peace operations, including through the review, are no doubt necessary, it is important to be clear about what these efforts can and cannot achieve. One thing I have noticed over my time working on peace operations is that policymakers are often tempted to fill the wrong gaps or address existing problems with the wrong tools. Usually, this takes the form of Member States trying to further improve the efficiency of peace operations to make up for political shortcomings. Peace operations may struggle to achieve their mandates because parties on the ground refuse to engage in a political process or because the Council fails to provide missions with the political backing that they need. Yet rather than grappling with these problems, there is an assumption that what peace operations need to succeed are things like new technologies, better peacekeeping training or improved data collection. In other words, we are trying to use technical tools to solve political problems. Over the past few decades, peace operations have become remarkably professionalized, and to be sure, we should continue seeking opportunities to improve their performance in the field. However, Member States must take responsibility for their role in ensuring the success of peace operations and not simply pass the buck to peacekeepers, expecting them to overcome gaping political deficits. When it comes to UN80 and efforts to reform the peace and security pillar, we can no longer ask peace operations to do more with less. That moment has passed. We must grapple with how to do less with less, or perhaps more optimistically, how to do differently with less. This requires vision — vision for what a smaller United Nations could achieve when it comes to maintaining international peace and security. Unfortunately, so far, the UN80 Initiative does not seem to be guided by such a vision, and many Member States have expressed reticence to undertake another long negotiation process following the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1). Yet if Member States do not articulate how they envision reform efforts making the United Nations more effective, cuts will be arbitrary, lacking in strategy or driven by bureaucratic and political interests. A vision to guide UN80 need not be created from scratch. Recent processes, including Our Common Agenda, the New Agenda for Peace, the Pact for the Future and the ongoing reviews of peace operations and the peacebuilding architecture all provide pieces that can form the basis of such a vision. At the International Peace Institute, we stand by, ready to support Member States in ensuring that the reform process helps to strengthen the United Nations ability to serve the global community and uphold the Charter. Thirdly, amid political and financial pressures, some Member States have begun suggesting that United Nations peace operations should get “back to basics”. Is this a good idea? The answer is yes and no. The answer is yes in the sense that the United Nations should recover and strengthen its use of preventive diplomacy. The United Nations role in preventive diplomacy was first articulated by Dag Hammarskjöld At the same time, the message of going back to basics is being instrumentalized by some to undermine the work of the United Nations in areas such as human rights, protection and gender. Not only are these values at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations, but they are also strategically important to peace and the implementation of peace operations’ mandates. When missions fail to meet the needs of everyday individuals, they lose the trust of local communities and struggle to achieve their political objectives. As I said when I most recently had the pleasure of briefing the Council (see S/PV.9884), broader peacebuilding activities such as community engagement, strengthening State-society relations, human rights and gender are not simply nice to have. They are necessary to build sustainable peace. This does not mean that each of these tasks has to be implemented by United Nations peacekeepers, and finding ways to strengthen partnerships with the broader United Nations family and other actors is a step in the right direction. However, financial efficiency must not be used as an excuse to eliminate peacebuilding imperatives. To conclude, in today’s climate it is easy to feel lost amid all the changes taking place. The fatigue of swimming upstream against an endless barrage of challenges can plant doubts that we are ever able to make a difference. It is important, therefore, to remember that for thousands of people, the presence of the United Nations can literally mean the difference between life and death. United Nations peace operations are a vital tool in collective security and, despite the current challenges, the United Nations can emerge from this moment stronger and better able to serve the global community. However, it will not happen automatically. It requires vision, strong and creative diplomacy and a relentless commitment to deliver on the Charter.

I thank Ms. Russo for her briefing. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Republic of Korea for assuming the presidency of the Security Council for the month of September. I commend you, Mr. President, for convening today’s timely debate, in coordination with Denmark and Pakistan. I would also like to thank Under- Secretary-General Mr. Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General Ms. DiCarlo, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany in his capacity as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Mr. Zahneisen, and Director of Research, International Peace Institute, Ms. Jenna Russo, for their very informative briefings. Eight decades since the first deployments, United Nations peace operations remain one of the most visible and effective tools of the Council to maintain international peace and security. They have saved lives, prevented escalation and I would like to highlight three points. First, as agreed in the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1), peace operations must adapt to better respond to existing challenges and new realities, without compromising their core functions. This adjustment should be a critical element of the review of the future of peace operations. While over the years mandates have come to include protection of civilians, human rights, women, youth and even climate dimensions, the observation and monitoring of ceasefires remain at the heart of peacekeeping. This is what creates the space necessary for diplomacy to succeed. In this respect, Greece warmly welcomed the Council’s unanimous renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, earlier this year. This mission continues to play an irreplaceable role in maintaining stability on the island, de-escalating tensions in the buffer zone and supporting the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy to resume negotiations in line with United Nations parameters. Greece also supported the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. We consider the mission a reliable and critical partner of the Lebanese Government and a pillar of stability for Lebanon and the entire region. The transition of the mission needs to be safe and orderly and closely coordinated with the host country. At the same time, the Council has a responsibility to address the repercussions emanating from ending the mandate and to ensure that it will not create a security vacuum. As a long-standing troop-contributing country, Greece remains committed to supporting these missions with qualified and gender-balanced personnel. In addition, the Pact for the Future rightly underscores the importance of maritime security as an integral component of international peace and security. Maritime insecurity, whether through illicit arms flows, trafficking, piracy or attacks against commercial shipping, directly undermines fragile peace processes and often intersects with the mandates of United Nations operations, from enforcing arms embargoes to ensuring humanitarian access. Addressing such threats requires closer cooperation between United Nations peace operations, regional organizations and coastal States. As a maritime nation, Greece strongly supports efforts to reinforce the maritime security dimension of peace operations, in line with the Pact’s holistic and preventive approach. Secondly, innovation is essential to make peace operations more agile and effective. Technology, and artificial intelligence in particular, can provide tremendous possibilities for the enhancement of operational efficiency and the reduction of risks to personnel. But at the same time, we must guard against the misuse of such technologies to spread disinformation or undermine the credibility of peacekeepers. This was extensively discussed during last April’s Arria-formula meeting, which was organized by Greece, France and the Republic of Korea. Thirdly, partnerships with host countries, local communities and regional organizations are vital to the success of peacekeeping. In this respect, Greece strongly supports the strategic partnerships of the United Nations with the European Union. We also commend the contribution of the African Union and subregional bodies in conflict prevention, mediation and peacekeeping. Lastly, financial constraints should not compromise the core civilian and uniformed capacities of missions. Neither should they weaken their safety and effectiveness. Elements such as the protection of civilians, gender and human rights priorities are not optional add-ons, but the foundation of any lasting peace.

First, I would like to express the gratitude of our delegation for the leadership and wisdom of Ambassador Eloy Alfaro de Alba, of Panama, during the Panamanian presidency in August. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. President, and the Republic of Korea, for assuming the presidency. I can assure you of our full cooperation and support. I would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary- General DiCarlo, the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and Ms. Russo for their really thought-provoking briefings and historical perspective. I would like to thank them for their commitment to peace operations and for injecting passion and realism for peace operations into today’s debate. At the outset, we pay tribute to the troop-contributing countries and all peacekeepers for their tireless service to the cause of peace. We extend our deepest condolences to the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I thank the Republic of Korea for recognizing the importance of once again debating this issue in an open format. We commend the leadership of the Secretary-General and Under-Secretary-General Lacroix. There are more conflicts raging around the globe than ever before. They last longer. All that comes in a period when divisions in the Council and in our international community are running deep. The review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations therefore comes at a critical juncture, at a time when keeping peace is more important than ever. All changes to the current peacekeeping infrastructure must be made cautiously and attentively. Let me elaborate further in the three following points. The first point regards agility and adaptability. Peace operations must be fit for purpose. For the sake of the sustainability of the peace agreements, they cannot be imposed. If they are to be respected and lead to the rehabilitation and reconciliation of the affected communities, they must be just and lasting, based on international law, and they must ensure accountability. Mandates must be realistic, prioritized and supported by adequate resources to meet their objectives. The protection of civilians must remain unequivocally at the core of our efforts. At the same time, peace operations must actively support political processes, strengthen security on the ground and evolve to meet new challenges, from climate-related insecurity to the risks posed by emerging technologies. Investment in digital tools, early warning, artificial intelligence, drones and data analytics is not optional — it is essential for effectiveness. The second point regards political primacy. No peace operation can substitute for inclusive, nationally owned political processes. Peacekeeping must be matched with diplomacy, mediation and prevention, backed by the Secretary-General’s good offices. The Council must show unity of purpose and provide credible mandates. Inaction carries a cost, and it is civilians who pay it. In today’s world, peace operations are often the critical lifeline for communities in conflict and essential support in maintaining peace and security in regions under strain. The third point regards coherence, credibility and sustainability. Peace operations, peacebuilding and sustainable development must reinforce one another. Any transitions must be carefully managed to avoid security vacuums. The UN80 Initiative should protect core capacities for rapid deployment. Credibility depends Slovenia will therefore continue to engage constructively in this review. We see it as an opportunity to ensure that peace operations remain a central tool of the Organization, true to the expectations of those we serve. Finally, I reaffirm Slovenia’s unwavering commitment to multilateralism, including as both a troop and police contributor. Our engagement reflects our belief in collective action for peace, security and human dignity. We will continue to support efforts to adapt peace operations to today’s realities and tomorrow’s challenges, with the Security Council’s leadership playing a decisive role.

At the outset, I congratulate you, Mr. President, and the Republic of Korea on the assumption of the presidency this month and commend Panama on a successful presidency in August. I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s open debate, providing an opportunity for the entire United Nations membership to engage on this important topic. Today’s meeting comes at an opportune time, as we reflect on the progress made since the adoption of the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) and look ahead to the UN80 Initiative. I thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo, Ms. Jenna Russo and Ambassador Zahneisen for their comprehensive and informative briefings. Having been a troop-contributing country and witnessed first-hand the positive impact of United Nations peace operations, Guyana acknowledges the decades of success of United Nations peace operations in shortening conflicts, protecting civilians and preventing the spillover of crises. However, we must also take stock of the complex and multifaceted challenges that define today’s security landscape and sometimes transcend borders. The operating environment for United Nations peace operations is itself often marred by asymmetric threats, mis- and disinformation, hostile national armed forces, organized crime and the effects of climate change. Consequently, United Nations peace operations must be more adaptable and resilient than ever before. Moreover, agility and efficiency must never be achieved at the expense of core, non-negotiable mandates. The protection of civilians, including children, the promotion of human rights and the full implementation of the women and peace and security agenda are not ancillary functions — they are the very essence of our collective efforts to build sustainable peace and must therefore be part of the core of peacekeeping operations. These priorities are strategically and politically necessary for missions’ long-term success. We must therefore ensure that they are maintained across all types of missions, even those with smaller footprints. Guyana is of the firm belief that prevention is not only more humane but also more cost-effective than intervention. We must therefore place greater emphasis on the pacific settlement of disputes, and United Nations peace operations must be adequately equipped to support conflict resolution efforts utilizing preventive diplomacy, mediation and other dialogue-intensive efforts. The success of peace operations should be measured not just by their ability to manage conflict but by their capacity to prevent it from erupting or escalating. Peacekeeping missions must be fully equipped and mandated to support and facilitate political processes. Furthermore, the integrity and performance of our missions are directly linked to their financial stability. It is imperative that we find a sustainable solution to the As we engage in the ongoing review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations, Guyana stands ready to contribute constructively to the conversation. We believe in the primacy of politics, the protection of civilians, cooperation with host countries and other principles of Action for Peacekeeping and Action for Peacekeeping Plus, which aim to make missions more effective, safer and better equipped, and share the view that these can serve as steadfast guideposts. Let us work together to ensure that our peace operations are not only fit for current challenges but are also robust, agile and well-equipped to meet the crises of tomorrow.

At the outset, I wish to express our sincere congratulations to Panama for the successful presidency during the month of August. I also wish to convey our full support to the Republic of Korea for its presidency during this very difficult month of September and to commend the Republic of Korea for convening this important debate. I convey my appreciation to Under-Secretary- General DiCarlo and Under-Secretary-General Lacroix and the representative of Germany for their briefings. I also thank Ms. Jenna Russo for her presentation. I seize this opportunity to pay tribute to the blue helmets and express Algeria’s gratitude for their tremendous sacrifices. We are at a crucial phase for United Nations peace operations due to a changing security landscape and challenging times for our Organization. Last year, the Pact for the Future had set the tone through the request of a review of all forms of peace operations, and we reiterate our call for an inclusive consultation process to produce a comprehensive review that paves the way for adaptable, effective and fit-for- purpose peace operations. In this regard, I wish to underline the following three points. First, “mandate” is the key word. Its setting phase has to respond to a number of considerations to fulfil the expected requirements. The starting point could be in the mandate-renewal resolutions that the Council adopts on a regular basis with, too often, minor technical adjustments. This exercise should not be undertaken in disconnection with the situation on the ground and with the current efforts to improve the performance of United Nations peace operations. Also, the impartiality of the penholder and their ability to go beyond their national perception on the file before them are essential. Being a penholder on a file under which a United Nations peace operation is deployed implies a particular responsibility to reflect the views of all members, thus contributing to a durable solution to the conflict on the agenda of the Council. However, moving away from this responsibility would undermine the collective efforts of the international community and multilateralism as a whole. Furthermore, setting the mandate of United Nations peace operations in the current context requires a great sense of the adaptations necessary to respond to the new realities on the ground. The new nature of threats differs completely from the traditional perception of security challenges and crises on which the presence of United Nations peace operations was built, in which these United Nations operations were deployed to create buffer zones separating two regular armies. We are currently facing different challenges, with hybrid threats. Secondly, we believe in the power of partnerships. The implementation of the letter and spirit of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations is necessary, particularly in the current context of reform and review. However, we will need to Thirdly, cost-effectiveness has to be our keyword. The current financial challenges we are facing should be perceived as an opportunity, as a catalyst for reform to improve the performance of peace operations. We need, in this regard, to make a clear distinction between cost-effectiveness, prioritizing resources and indiscriminate budget cuts. Cost-effectiveness should not be equated with doing less. Rather, it should mean doing better, delivering more strategic, focused and results- driven missions with the resources at hand. Cost-effectiveness comes also through more investment — more investment in prevention, in mediation and in good offices. It comes through investment in a viable political project, around which the presence of United Nations peace operations should be designed with a clear end state. To conclude, United Nations peace operations remain an essential tool to maintain international peace and security — our mandate. They represent a clear expression of how multilateralism can contribute to stabilization and conflict-resolution efforts.

Let me congratulate you, Mr. President, on assuming the presidency of the Council. I would also like to thank Under- Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo, Ambassador Zahneisen as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and Jenna Russo from the International Peace Institute for their briefings and insights today. The United Nations has a unique role in addressing many of today’s most difficult and sensitive conflicts, but United Nations peace operations today struggle with a system that is in need of reform and reprioritization. The United States therefore continues to advocate that the United Nations return to its foundational purpose of maintaining international peace and security. In other words, we need to get back to basics. As part of these larger United Nations reform efforts, United Nations peacekeeping in particular must be more accountable, adaptable and transparent. The United Nations will thereby be better able to exercise its comparative advantages, including by deploying multinational, tailored, targeted solutions to address peace and security problems. First, to improve accountability, excellence in performance must be better rewarded and incentivized. At the same time, expedient and consistently applied consequences must also be imposed, including for performance failures, conduct and discipline issues, resource mismanagement, inaction in the face of impediments to missions’ mandates and non-intervention when imminent threats of physical violence against civilians arise. Reform should ensure that the United Nations has clear and consistent performance standards for both uniformed and civilian personnel and transparent accountability mechanisms that are used to address underperformance in the efficient execution of mandates. Similarly, both individual perpetrators, as well as troop-contributing countries and police-contributing countries, must be held Secondly, to increase transparency, United Nations Headquarters, in cooperation with peace operations at the mission level, must engage in integrated planning. This includes both Headquarters-level scenario planning as well as integrated military and civilian mission planning. These efforts will ensure that United Nations peace operations have actionable end states and timelines, clear and demonstrable metrics to achieve these end states and a streamlined support structure that both fosters innovation and responsibly allocates shared resources. Missions must be able to showcase their progress and actively and collectively work themselves out of a job. To support transparency, reforms are needed to ensure that clear mandates articulate a desired goal or end state, prioritize available resources and provide the flexibility for mission leaders to determine how best to achieve those goals based on dynamics on the ground. Reforms are also needed to ensure the Council is provided with regular and frank assessments and realistic recommendations, not just what it wants to hear. These efforts to increase transparency are necessary so that all members can see a concrete and measurable return on our investment. Thirdly, to empower adaptability, peace operations need to reflect the political and operational realities of the moment. These include the need for clear and focused mandates, tasks and support structures, which will help to gain buy-in and make significant contributions to defusing and resolving conflict through peace operations. Targeted and achievable mandates, rather than burdensome mandates, will also help to address the growing trust deficit facing peace operations today. Reforms for adaptability can include the modular approaches suggested in the recent study by the Department of Peace Operations on the future of peacekeeping, which would help to ensure that peace operations are focused, nimble and context-specific. This can also be accomplished through adaptive planning, structural changes that support flexibility and incentives for thoughtful risk-taking, rather than an acceptance of the status quo. In conclusion, the United States remains concerned about the bureaucratic inefficiencies, politicized initiatives and burdensome mandates of the United Nations, which inhibit clear prioritization and strain resources. President Trump is steadfast in his goal of restoring peace across the world, and President Trump also has made it clear that the United Nations needs to focus on its core mandate to be better positioned for success. That is why we continue to advocate for significant reforms to the United Nations, including through the review of all forms of peace operations. Progress in responding to this pivotal time and the transformation of the United Nations will require broad political backing, operational wherewithal and visionary leadership. We must be ready to meet the moment.

I once again congratulate the Republic of Korea for assuming the presidency of the Council and thank Panama for an excellent presidency in August. One year ago, world leaders convened in New York to adopt the Pact for the Future. It was a moment of hope and determination, driven by a collective recognition to adapt our institutions, including United Nations peace operations, to the challenging realities of our time. Today’s debate is an important step towards achieving this objective, so let me commend the Republic of Korea for convening this timely open debate as a continuation of the trio initiative with Denmark and Pakistan. Let me also thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo, Ambassador Zahneisen and Ms. Russo for their briefings and recommendations. United Nations peace operations represent multilateral solidarity at its finest. Around the world, communities offer the most precious resources, their people, in Allow me to address three critical areas. First, on the matter of mandate design, in March, we heard strong calls for mandates that are clear, focused and achievable, mandates that place the protection of civilians at their core. But building peace is not a zero-sum game. The need for precision and protection must not come at the expense of long-term and inclusive peacebuilding. Political engagement, institution-building, transitional justice, the promotion and protection of human rights and the advancement of the women and peace and security agenda are not optional, they are fundamental. Mandates must therefore both be context-specific and sequenced to adapt to evolving conflicts and needs. Strategic assessments by the United Nations are key to achieving this. Secondly, in the context of an increasingly complex landscape, we must safe­ guard and strengthen the core capacities that allow peace operations to respond in an integrated, swift and effective manner. These include not only uniformed personnel and logistics support, but also critical civilian expertise in political affairs, media­ tion, rule of law, gender, climate security and digital technology. Planning capacity across civilian, military and police components is essential. Without this, approaches become siloed, accountability is unclear, and mandate implementation is hindered. We urge the United Nations to invest more in developing and institutionalizing an integrated planning process across all peace operations. Such capacities and planning will help peace operations operate in a changing environment where peace is not linear, where needs change and responses need to change with them. Thirdly, the peaceful settlement of disputes lies at the heart of the Charter. We believe that the same should apply to United Nations peace operations. From early warning and the facilitation of dialogue to support for local and inclusive peace processes and women’s participation, these aspects should be prioritized, empowered and, importantly, resourced. Similarly, we urge the Secretary-General to boldly use his good offices to invest in mediation and to take risks. The Council can reinforce these efforts. We should encourage missions to work closely with regional organizations, such as the African Union. We should also regularly listen to the advice of the Peacebuilding Commission, which can bring a variety of perspectives. We should not be afraid to adapt our responses. In conclusion, the future of United Nations peace operations must be shaped by both ambition and realism. We cannot solve every problem, but we can and must remain credible actors for peace. The Council holds the tools to shape mandates and support missions with the resources that they require. What is needed is the political will and the courage to do so. Let us seize this opportunity to ensure that United Nations peace operations remain fit for purpose. Denmark looks forward to working with all Council members, including our partners within the trio initiative, to this end.

I congratulate the Republic of Korea on assuming the presidency of the Council this month. I also congratulate Panama on the smooth conclusion of its presidency last month. China commends the Republic of Korea, Denmark and Pakistan for jointly convening this meeting. We thank Under-Secretary-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo and Ambassador Thomas Zahneisen for their briefings. I have also listened attentively to the recommendations made by Ms. Jenna Russo. I wish to make four points in that regard. First and foremost, we must focus on core mandates and political objectives. Peace operations are a means, not an end. They must serve a clearly defined political process and create favourable conditions for a political solution. Peace operations are not a panacea either. For each peace operation, the Security Council should prepare a practical and prioritized mandate with clear goals and make adjustments as the situation evolves. The Council should also set out, in a timely manner, a clear and feasible exit strategy for peace operations. This strategy, however, should be primarily determined by the will of the country concerned and the situation on the ground, and should neither be held hostage to the policies of any individual country nor be adopted or abandoned at will. Secondly, the performance of peace operations must be fully enhanced. The efficient use of resources is a duty of peace operations. A culture of efficiency should be promoted throughout the entire process. Adequate planning is essential across areas such as logistics, finance and procurement. Resources should be better integrated and overlapping investments should be reduced in order to make funds more cost-effective. Strict financial discipline must be enforced to prevent the waste of funds and ensure accountability. In procuring supplies, it is essential to broaden the supply chain and pursue greater cost-effectiveness and transparency. The success of peace operations hinges on stable, predictable and sustainable funding. Every Member State is obligated to pay its United Nations dues and peacekeeping assessments in full. Thirdly, partnerships for peace operations should be strengthened. Strong support from host countries is a crucial prerequisite for the success of peace operations. Special missions must respect the sovereignty and ownership of host countries, maintain effective cooperation with them and earn the recognition of their Governments and people. This will lay a solid foundation for the smooth implementation of the missions’ mandates. Troop- and police-contributing countries, host countries, the Peacebuilding Commission and regional organizations should fulfil their respective roles, complement each other’s strengths and collectively contribute to the effectiveness of peace operations. China supports African solutions to African issues. We look forward to the early operationalization of the framework arrangements set out in resolution 2719 (2023) to provide sufficient, predictable and sustainable funding for African Union-led peace operations. Fourthly, the safety and security of peacekeepers must be effectively guaranteed. In recent years, peacekeepers have faced increasingly grim security risks. The entire United Nation system must improve its emergency response mechanisms in order to minimize casualties. China supports the Secretariat and the missions in continuing to implement Council resolution 2518 (2020), strengthening capacity-building in areas such as situational awareness, reconnaissance, surveillance and medical evacuation. This will provide peacekeepers with comprehensive, multi-tiered security guarantees. Attacks against peacekeepers must not go unpunished, accountability mechanisms should be put in place and improved, and host countries should be supported in making every effort to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice.

I would like to thank the President and other colleagues for their kind comments congratulating me on my management of Panama’s presidency of the Council in August. I especially welcome their unmerited and exaggerated praise. I would also like to thank the Republic of Korea for organizing this meeting and the briefers, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Rosemary DiCarlo, Thomas Zahneisen and Jenna Russo for their apt interventions. The Peacekeeping Ministerial Conference held in Berlin and recent research and dialogue, including the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, show just how essential it is to focus on adapting peacekeeping operations to all the new challenges on the ground. These challenges include the rise in extremism, the often-deliberate acceleration of climate change and the ensuing fight for natural resources, and the use of algorithms as a weapon of impunity in elections and in war. Each of these challenges must immediately be addressed in coordination with all actors involved. We must take into account science and expert research, which closely follow the new dynamics and the developments in challenges on the ground in peacekeeping operations and focus on the people who we serve. This developing situation gives us the opportunity to review efficiency and reform outdated practices, which should be updated and adapted depending on their respective mandates. To operationalize all of this requires strengthening international cooperation together with the private sector, international financial institutions and development banks and fostering communication with local authorities, the communities that we serve and regional organizations. These new alliances must be leveraged to continue to build trust among all parties. Let us support States in the creation and implementation of their national prevention strategies. Let us ensure the necessary funding to guarantee education for peace that is based on championing and respecting human rights, gender equality and the robust protection of democracy. As members of the Peacebuilding Commission and based on our principles, we will continue to promote peacebuilding in military and political transitions. This is why we call for more women and young people to be included at the local level in processes of mediation and preventive diplomacy. At the end of the day, it is they who will be responsible for building and sustaining peace over time. We also believe that operations should include a comprehensive perspective of the countries affected. That would enable us to efficiently address those needs that the affected parties have clamoured for during all of our meetings. We recognize the independent study on the future of peace operations, which proposes a road map to be followed. We therefore call upon all Member States to invest once again in the United Nations and to provide additional resources to guarantee the operation of the 30 new models proposed. This will make it possible to move towards a new geopolitical era. We are concerned about disinformation and the current trend whereby many countries are withdrawing from agreements which committed them to peace in order Let us continue to build and extend bridges in order to overcome polarization. We will support political solutions that adapt operations to new realities, such as the evolving multilateral system, and to the growing number of actors who seek to use algorithms — artificial intelligence — as weapons of war with impunity, or, worse still, to those who attempt to instrumentalize climate change to extract critical minerals at the expense of the common good. The future of peace operations requires willingness and participation. We must be prepared to innovate and be convinced that financial contributions are key to the success of the implementation of the new models.

We congratulate the Republic of Korea on assuming the presidency of the Council, and we thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate, which Pakistan is pleased to co-sponsor, together with Denmark, our other partner in the Peacekeeping Trio Initiative. Peacekeeping is the greatest success story of the United Nations, but today, just like the United Nations itself, it is under siege. Starved of resources, constrained in mandates and shrinking in presence, it risks becoming a casualty of political neglect and geopolitics. But we cannot let one of multilateralism’s most effective tools be sidelined by inaction. We are all stakeholders in its success, and we must act to not only preserve, but to make this instrument even more relevant, fit for purpose and fit for the future, corresponding to the diverse challenges in the domain of peace and security. That is why this continuing debate — inside and outside the Security Council — is so important, and we thank Under-Secretary-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix and Under- Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo for their detailed briefings and important work. We also appreciate Ambassador Zahneisen and Ms. Russo for their valuable insights. United Nations peace operations are facing another period of crisis. As many here have confirmed, conflicts are multiplying. Yet, the response of the United Nations is dwindling. No new mission has been deployed since 2014; several have closed or drawn down; and those that remain struggle with financial and operational constraints that threaten mandate delivery. This is a dangerous paradox the world cannot afford. This has also created a crisis of confidence. The Secretary-General’s review on the future of peace operations is therefore timely and essential to restore faith in this indispensable tool for peace and security. Peacekeeping success is undeniable — from Cambodia and Timor-Leste to Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Burundi and elsewhere. Pakistani Blue Helmets have contributed and been witness to many of these success stories. Strong support shown at the 2025 Peacekeeping Ministerial Conference in Berlin confirmed that Member States remain committed to United Nations peace operations. Yet, endorsement must translate into action. Pakistan has consistently stressed the primacy of politics, tailored mandates, the peace continuum, the prevention and peacebuilding dimensions and the importance of strong partnerships for more effective peacekeeping. Today I wish to highlight six priorities. First, we must confront resource constraints, and we must be candid. With a budget of just $5.4 billion, which is less than 0.2 per cent of global military spending, peacekeeping remains the most cost-effective instrument of peace. Yet, liquidity crises and delayed payments erode credibility and create dangerous vacuums. Assessed contributions must be paid in full and on time. Efficiency drives, such as Secondly, the protection of civilians must remain central. This principle arose from the darkest failures of the United Nations in Rwanda and Srebrenica. Yet today, resource scarcity is cited to justify backsliding. Protection of civilians is not optional; it is both a moral duty and a strategic necessity. Mandates must be strengthened, resourced and backed by accountability of mission leadership. Thirdly, troop- and police-contributing countries, which shoulder the burden in the field, remain, unfortunately, mostly excluded from crucial decisions. This divide between mandate drafters and mandate implementers must end. Structured consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries at every stage are vital to mission success. Fourthly, the safety and security of peacekeepers must be ensured. Accountability for attacks against peacekeepers must be real. Attacks on them must be investigated and prosecuted to create deterrence. Fifthly, peace operations must support the peaceful settlement of disputes and address root causes. Missions should be empowered to sustain ceasefires, deter escalation and foster dialogue, including through the Secretary-General’s good offices and preventive diplomacy. The value of a United Nations presence is even greater in complex environments. It also provides transparency, restraint and legitimacy in volatile contexts. This reaffirms the broader principle that peacekeeping is not only about managing conflicts but also about upholding international legitimacy and preventing the escalation of unresolved disputes. Finally, peacekeeping must evolve, not retreat. Missions should responsibly adopt new technologies, address climate-related security risks, deploy more women peacekeepers and engage local communities. They must be designed with clear priorities, achievable tasks and credible leadership. Obviously, there is no one-size-fits-all in peace operations. We should continue to optimally draw on the wide range of possibilities, from special political missions to peacekeeping missions, as appropriate. And we should be able to do that while conforming to the Charter of the United Nations and learning from the history and unique experience of United Nations peacekeeping, as many of the briefers also noted today. For over seven decades, Pakistan has stood firmly with the United Nations in the cause of peacekeeping. We also host one of the oldest United Nations missions — the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 250,000 Pakistanis have served in 48 missions, often in the most difficult environments. The sacrifice of 182 of our peacekeepers is a testament to our enduring commitment to the Charter and multilateralism. We salute all the peacekeepers, past and present. Peace operations form the core of the Council’s work. They are proven, effective instruments of peace. We must protect and strengthen them by investing strategically in their long-term success. The Security Council and the wider United Nations membership must provide their full political backing and adequate resources for this endeavour, which indeed is a test of our collective resolve to maintain international peace and security. If we stand as one, as the Secretary- General noted today in the General Assembly (see A/79/PV.96), we will succeed.

I congratulate you, Mr. President, on the start of your presidency and commend the Permanent Representative of Panama for his presidency last month. I thank Under-Secretary-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General Rosemary DiCarlo, Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany and Chair of the France is committed to peacekeeping. We support it politically, financially and as a contributor of troops and equipment and through numerous training initiatives. I will emphasize three points. First, peacekeeping has proven its effectiveness. The United Nations has indisputable legitimacy and a unique capacity to generate and project forces. Improving the performance of missions must enable the full implementation of their mandates and contribute to peacekeepers’ safety. France reiterates its commitment to effective multilateralism, of which peacekeeping is one of the main instruments for concrete action in the service of peace and international security. There have been many successes in peacekeeping. Sierra Leone, seated around this table, can testify to this. Liberia, which will be sitting here next year, can also attest to this. In Cambodia, Namibia, Timor-Leste and elsewhere, the United Nations has contributed to the return of peace. Furthermore, the benefits of peacekeeping continue to be demonstrated in many regions. In a difficult context and despite obstacles, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to play an indispensable role in protecting civilians. It saves the lives of civilians threatened by armed groups in its areas of operation in the east of the country. As the only international force still present in the country, it has the necessary capabilities and legitimacy to contribute to the implementation of the peace agreements when the time comes, in particular through ceasefire verification. The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic, through effective collaboration with the Government of the Central African Republic and its armed forces, has made significant progress in expanding State authority and improving security. This progress, which must be consolidated, benefits the civilian population, which the Mission helps to protect, and the stabilization of the region. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has achieved significant results on the ground since the signing of the ceasefire in November 2024. It supports the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in their mission to restore the State’s monopoly on arms and the authority of the Lebanese State throughout the territory. The recent unanimous renewal of its mandate with resolution 2790 (2025) will enable it to continue its operations for a period of 16 months and to support the strengthening of the Lebanese Armed Forces. To be effective — and this is my final point — peacekeeping requires strong commitment from the members of the Council and the United Nations as a whole. Missions need the necessary resources, tailored to the requirements of their mandates and the realities on the ground. All Member States must pay their assessed contributions in full and on time. France calls on everyone to act responsibly. Political objectives must dictate the resources allocated to the missions and not the other way around. The Council must live up to the responsibility conferred on it by the Charter, namely, to guarantee international peace and security. The deployment of peacekeeping operations is a tool for achieving political objectives, in a clear and robust framework. Their success depends on the political will of the members of the Council, which is sometimes lacking. Peacekeeping is not a panacea. It can and must adapt to contemporary challenges and become more efficient. In that regard, France supports reform efforts, particularly in the framework of the Pact for the Future (General Assembly resolution 79/1) and UN80. We salute the courage of the peacekeepers and the memory of those who have

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Republic of Korea for assuming the presidency for the month of September. You can count on our support, Mr. President. I would also like to thank Panama for the able way in which it steered the Security Council’s work last month. I commend the Republic of Korea for convening this crucial open debate on the future of peace operations in collaboration with Denmark and Pakistan as the peacekeeping trio. I thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary- General DiCarlo and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassador Zahneisen, for their valuable insights and appreciate the contribution of Ms. Russo to the discussion today. I take this opportunity to honour the sacrifices of those United Nations peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the line of duty and to recognize their legacy in the lives they touched and the peace they worked to build around the world. Africa’s perspective is shaped by its direct experience as a host to peacekeeping missions, a troop-contributing region and a continent that understands the critical importance of effective peace operations intimately. We have seen both the positive impacts and the limitations of these missions. As we gather one year after the adoption of the Pact for the Future, nowhere is the need for adaptation more evident than in Africa, where the complexity of conflicts demands innovative approaches. For nearly eight decades, United Nations peace operations have proven their worth as indispensable tools for maintaining international peace and security. Yet today’s conflicts demand that we honestly assess how these operations can become more agile, tailored and effective in addressing current and future challenges. First, in our experience, the success of United Nations peace operations depends on two interlinked principles: clear strategic planning and operational adaptability. Each mission must have well-defined objectives and a clear exit strategy from the beginning, designed to accommodate the dynamic nature of conflict situations. What begins as a peacekeeping mission may require a swift transition to peace enforcement or, conversely, a rapid shift towards peacebuilding initiatives. Secondly, we must prioritize the development–security nexus. It is impossible to achieve sustainable and lasting peace without addressing the underlying root causes of conflict, in particular inequalities and underdevelopment. This is why we strongly advocate for the increased nationalization of United Nations posts and the prioritization of local procurement. This strategy builds sustainable local capacity and positively contributes to the mission’s responsiveness and legitimacy on the ground. Investing in local economies in post-conflict settings is not just about operational efficiency; it is a direct investment in peacebuilding and reversing the despair that fuels conflict. Thirdly, as we consider the UN80 Initiative and potential reforms, we must be vigilant that financial constraints do not undermine the essential capacities needed to respond effectively to peace and security crises. Member States must commit to predictable, adequate and timely funding that enables missions to fulfil their mandates without compromising on quality or safety. Fourthly, we welcome the renewed focus on strengthening the role of peace op­ erations in mediation, preventive diplomacy and utilizing the good offices of the Secretary-General. Sustainable peace requires inclusive political solutions that pri­ oritize dialogue, reconciliation and genuine national ownership of the peace process. As we look towards the completion of the review by the Secretary-General, we emphasize that the guiding principles of Action for Peacekeeping and Action for Peacekeeping Plus must remain central to our reform efforts. The review presents an unprecedented opportunity to reshape United Nations peace operations for contemporary challenges, but this transformation must be guided by the experiences and needs of those most directly affected by the conflict. In closing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the Security Council and all Member States to ensure that future United Nations peace operations are more adaptable, effective and responsive instruments for maintaining international peace and security. Our goal must be to ensure that when United Nations missions depart, they leave behind not dependency, but a legacy of resilience, opportunity and self-sustained peace.

Let me take this opportunity to commend Ambassador Alfaro de Alba of Panama for the excellent stewardship of the Council during the month of August and also take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. President, and the Republic of Korea for assuming the presidency of the Council for this month. I would also like to assure you of the fullest support and cooperation of Sierra Leone during your tenure as President of the Council for this month. I would also like to thank the Republic of Korea, in collaboration with Denmark and Pakistan, for convening this timely open debate. I also want to thank the briefers, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, Ambassador Lacroix; Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Ms. Rosemary DiCarlo; Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassador Thomas Zahneisen; and Ms. Jenna Russo of the International Peace Institute, for their valuable insights. As conflicts and crises increase in number, spread across regions and deepen their humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences, United Nations peace operations remain indispensable for the maintenance of international peace and security. With more than 120 operations deployed in over 50 countries, they have helped manage ceasefires, reduce the length and intensity of conflicts, protect civilians and reinforce adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law. For Sierra Leone, this is not an abstraction. Our own journey from conflict to peace and democracy stands as living testimony to the transformative impact of United Nations peace operations. Yet, over the past decade, these operations have faced mounting challenges, including increasingly complex conflict environments, geopolitical divisions within the Council, persistent funding shortfalls and at times challenges with host Governments. These realities demand that the review mandated by the Pact for the Future deliver a more agile, adaptable and sustainable United Nations peace architecture. Allow me to highlight four priorities from Sierra Leone’s perspective regarding the future of peace operations. First, peace operations must remain fundamentally political tools in the service of durable peace. Mandates should be clear, sequenced and aligned with broader political strategies, as envisaged in action 21 of the Pact for the Future. The Security Council must craft outcome-oriented mandates that place political engagement, Secondly, sustainable financing and partnerships are indispensable. Liquidity crises must never compromise the safety of peacekeepers, civilians or mandate delivery. Sierra Leone underscores the importance of predictable and adequate financing, including through the full implementation of resolution 2719 (2023) on financing peace support operations led by the African Union (AU). Africa-led initiatives such as the AU and the standby forces of its regional economic communities remain vital for addressing cross-border extremist threats. Strengthening such cooperation will ensure more coherent responses to complex regional challenges. Over the years, Africa-led operations have proven their ability to grasp local dynamics, anticipate conflict triggers and advance durable strategies. The AU has established an African Standby Force designed for rapid response, created a mediation platform to facilitate peace talks and operationalized a peace fund that has supported initiatives across conflict zones. These reflect Africa’s commitment to leveraging regional expertise and resources to confront complex security challenges. Yet, more consistent support for African-led operations, particularly through the implementation of resolution 2719 (2023), is urgently required. Thirdly, missions must adapt through innovation, training and inclusivity. Peacekeepers require the right skills and tools to succeed in today’s environment. This includes specialized training on conflict resolution, protection of civilians, cultural sensitivity and the women and peace and security and climate, peace and security nexuses. Greater investment is needed in standby forces, non-discriminatory recruitment and mission-specific preparation. At the same time, technology and data should be harnessed for early warning, situational awareness and integrated response. Sierra Leone supports the wider deployment of the UNITE Aware platform to enhance operational coordination. We must also prioritize the protection and inclusion of women, youth and children. Conflicts disproportionately affect them, yet their participation improves peace outcomes. We therefore call for robust application of the Secretary-General’s bulletin on the protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse (ST/SGB/2003/13), stronger accountability mechanisms and the meaningful inclusion of women and youth in peace processes, transitional justice and peacebuilding. Fourthly, accountability and legitimacy are central to credibility. Peace operations must be conducted with transparency and accountability for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, whether by peacekeepers or other actors. Strengthening triangular cooperation among the United Nations, troop- and police-contributing countries, host States and other stakeholders will improve implementation of resolution 2589 (2021) and ensure accountability for crimes against peacekeepers. Building host States’ capacity to deliver justice is equally essential. Sierra Leone strongly supports the Action for Peacekeeping initiative and its successor, Action for Peacekeeping Plus. These frameworks remain vital for setting realistic expectations, strengthening partnerships and ensuring safer and more effective missions. They must be fully integrated into the current review and aligned with the priorities of the UN80 Initiative to ensure that peace operations remain fit for purpose. In conclusion, Sierra Leone reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to working with all partners to ensure that United Nations peace operations become agile, more inclusive and more effective in addressing present and future challenges. We look forward to the outcome of the review and to action-oriented recommendations that ensure that United Nations peace operations continue to serve as a beacon of hope for millions across the world.

Let me congratulate you, Mr. President, on assuming the presidency of the Security Council for the month of September. I also thank Panama for its presidency in August. We thank the delegation of the Republic of Korea for organizing this very timely discussion on the future of peace operations in the light of the Secretariat’s ongoing work on its review of the issue. We would like to thank Under-Secretaries-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix and Rosemary DiCarlo, as well as the Chair of the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission, Thomas Zahneisen, and the representative of the International Peace Institute, Jenna Russo, for their insightful briefings. United Nations peace operations, especially peacekeeping missions, have always been a hallmark of the United Nations. The Blue Helmets are a direct embodiment of the collective will of the international community to come to the aid of those who are in dire need. We pay tribute to the peacekeepers and other United Nations staff, including Russian citizens, who perished while performing their noble duty. Both peacekeeping and special political missions are vital tools for addressing conflicts and crises that threaten international peace and security. However, they differ significantly in terms of their mandates, objectives, types of forces and resources involved, as well as their funding methods. Nevertheless, both types of presence are facing similar challenges, including the so-called host State consent crisis. We believe that this is largely the result of a loss of clarity concerning the core purpose and the core mandate of such missions, and of a lack of a realistic assessment of what is achievable. We have seen that some missions have morphed into a means of promoting ideological agendas that have permeated Headquarters but that clearly do not coincide with the values and pressing needs of the host countries. This, understandably, breeds mistrust on the part of Governments and people, and they rightly ask themselves why they need such a presence. Now that the crisis of confidence has been acknowledged and peace operations are under review, we still see that different Member States and the Secretariat often interpret such terms as core mandate and clear, precise and achievable tasks in completely opposite ways. Despite the existing understanding that mandates should be tailored to each conflict and the current situation on the ground, we see the same liberal agendas being forced into the language of draft resolutions. For example, if certain wording were agreed upon for a resolution on the Central African Republic, why not use it in a resolution on Cyprus? For our part, we believe that the efforts of missions established by the Council should focus on facilitating political settlement. When it comes to peacekeeping operations, that means creating appropriate security conditions that the host country or other countries involved in the conflict are unable to provide for various reasons. The guiding principles here should be the Charter of the United Nations, in its We also see that many United Nations representatives and United Nations- affiliated experts are repeating the claims that the problems of United Nations missions stem from so-called geopolitical rifts or disagreements within the Security Council. We believe that this is true only with regard to a very limited number of contentious issues. In most cases, there are no differences among Security Council members regarding the nature of the problem and the ability of the United Nations to respond. Disagreements arise more often when missions are overloaded with tasks that are not directly related to the Security Council, such as an overinvolvement in domestic affairs and governance, human rights, climate change, development and so forth. Indeed, over the past few decades, compact missions have been replaced by massive operations involving thousands of personnel, who are tasked with such a wide range of issues that it is not always clear where the responsibility of peacekeepers ends and that of the State begins. As a result, in some countries, Blue Helmets have been present for decades, and the consequences of their possible withdrawal may trigger new problems that are now being discussed as part of the debate on transition. Amid the current financial crisis in the United Nations, the problem of overloaded mandates has become ever more pressing owing to insufficient resources for core tasks. Under these circumstances, it is necessary, not only in words but also in deeds, to revive and implement in practice the traditional United Nations division of labour, whereby missions do their jobs, while funds and programmes do theirs. In this regard, we would like to mention peacebuilding, especially in the light of the ongoing review of the peacebuilding architecture. For all the time that peacebuilding has existed, Member States have failed to fully define its scope. The concept may be understood as the maintenance of peace or preventive diplomacy. We have even seen attempts to connect it to counter-terrorism. There are ongoing debates about whether peacebuilding must necessarily be part of peacekeeping and special political missions. In this regard, we would like to note that projects undertaken by the Peacebuilding Fund are implemented through country teams rather than through missions. This is more than logical, particularly given that the Fund’s limited resources are intended for targeted use, in order for the projects to be taken up subsequently by funds and programmes focused on longer- term strategies. By entrusting missions with mandates that will obviously take years to implement, we determine in advance that they will be deployed over the long term and will be integrated into the domestic politics and economy of the host country. In conclusion, we would like to note that the current challenges facing peace operations require, first and foremost, that Member States and the Secretariat show the political will to address them substantively and take measures that are suited to the current geopolitical context. In our view, the issue here is not a lack of theoretical knowledge or innovative ideas regarding peacekeeping. Experience has shown that if the members of the Security Council — which is the body with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security — reach consensus, the Secretariat always has sufficient expertise and experience to prepare a suitable technical proposal that would reflect the regional and country-specific context and the positions of the main stakeholders. That does not require that the established methods for defining the mandate of peace operations be modified, or that they be replaced with modules of some type. We hope that, as part of the UN80 Initiative, the Secretary-General will propose solutions centred on a rational and balanced vision for the future activities of the

First, let me thank the delegation of Panama for its excellent stewardship of the Security Council for the month of August. I also congratulate you, Mr. President, on the assumption by the Republic of Korea of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. We wish you the best, and you have our full support. I thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary- General DiCarlo, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission Zahneisen, and Ms. Russo for briefing us today. For more than three quarters of a century, United Nations peace operations have played a critical role in supporting international peace and security. However, as our briefers have set out, the nature of conflict is evolving, and so must our approach to addressing it. I will make three points. First, the effectiveness of United Nations peace operations depends on their having realistic mandates that are grounded in a clear political strategy. Without such mandates, missions will struggle to deliver and will risk losing support from host communities. United Nations peace operations should also focus on the areas in which they have a comparative advantage, enabling other parts of the United Nations system, or other actors, to lead activities where they are better placed to do so. Secondly, it is important to ensure that United Nations peace operations are tailored to the contexts in which they operate. Some contexts, such as the Central African Republic, may suit larger, multidimensional peacekeeping operations. But in many situations, smaller, scalable and targeted peace operations may be more appropriate, for example the United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia, which has played an important role in supporting implementation of the peace agreement. Peace operations also need to adapt as situations change, including through the use of good contingency plans. Thirdly, we should continue pressing for improvements in the performance of peace operations, for example by providing appropriate training and equipment, but also by ensuring that performance and conduct standards are upheld, including through a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and abuse. We also encourage continued work to advance women’s participation in peacekeeping, as supported by the Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations, which the United Kingdom is proud to co-chair. United Nations peace operations are a critical and unique tool advancing international peace and security. That is why the Security Council, and other Member States, must continue giving peace operations the support that they need, whether by condemning attacks on peacekeepers or by ensuring that assessed contributions are paid in full, on time and without conditions. As Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo said, it comes down to political will on the part of host countries, regional actors and the Council. The Secretary-General’s review of the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations, alongside the UN80 Initiative reform agenda, offers a real opportunity to

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the Republic of Korea. I thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo and Ambassador Zahneisen for their informative and comprehensive briefings. I also thank Ms. Russo for sharing her inspiring insights. As reaffirmed in the meetings hosted by the trio initiative of Denmark, Pakistan and my own country, the Republic of Korea, United Nations peace operations enjoy broad support from Member States as a unique instrument of effective multilateral burden-sharing for the maintenance of international peace and security. Building on that support, the strengths of peace operations must be preserved while enabling them to adapt to the current liquidity challenges. Our efforts to drive change should be redoubled in that spirit. In that regard, we would like to emphasize the following four approaches. First, the Security Council should translate the consensus on tailored and agile missions into concrete practice. Action-oriented recommendations on how to put that rhetorical consensus into concrete practice should be included in the Secretary General’s review of peace operations. Regular assessments should accompany mandate renewals and thus allow adjustments as conditions evolve on the ground. However, when amending mandates, consideration should also be given to their interconnected nature in relation to achieving sustained peace, including the protection of civilians, human rights monitoring and the women and peace and security agenda. As the Chair of the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, we will contribute to the Council’s discussions on this matter. Secondly, the strategy for United Nations peace operations should be designed with a holistic approach that takes into consideration the peace continuum. In addition, as we underlined at the media stakeout this morning, peace operations need to be climate-sensitive throughout the peace continuum. That approach helps to sustain hard-won gains made possible by the presence of peace operations and to address the root causes of conflict by maintaining an appropriate presence and support. To that end, Korea has advocated that the Security Council strengthen cooperation with the Peacebuilding Commission to reinforce synergies between peace operations and peacebuilding. As was stated by the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission in his briefing, in such cases as Liberia, the Commission has played a convening role in the development of a peacebuilding plan after the withdrawal of peacekeeping mission. This coordinated approach between the two United Nations toolboxes can ensure that transitions from mission settings to long-term United Nations engagement are sustainable. As the informal coordinator between the two bodies, Korea has explored practical measures to strengthen such complementarity and is committed to continuing this effort. Thirdly, strengthening technological capabilities in peace operations should be pursued more actively to enhance efficiency and cost-effectiveness in mandate implementation. The financial constraints currently facing United Nations peace operations heighten the need to strengthen their technological capabilities. In addition, United Nations peace operations have faced growing challenges to the safety and security of their personnel. Therefore, to strengthen mission effectiveness and promote the safety and security of mission personnel, United Nations peace operations should cooperate more actively with host countries to utilize technologies such as artificial intelligence, unmanned aerial systems and telemedicine. The Last but not least, peace operations must take a people-centred approach in implementing their mandates. Local populations are not just beneficiaries of peace operations’ efforts but are also active participants in implementing the peace process through national ownership. Building trust with host nations and local populations is essential for mission success and for a lasting and positive legacy. Korea, for its part, has been committed to promoting local community engagement in this regard. For example, the Korean peacekeepers in UNMISS have been actively supporting grassroots initiatives such as rice cultivation and providing vocational training to improve community resilience. As a major financial and troop contributor, the Republic of Korea is committed to helping peace operations to adapt to current and future challenges. We hope that today’s open debate will inform the Secretary-General’s peace operations review and the peacebuilding architecture review and provide guidance to the ongoing peacekeeping reform efforts under the Action for Peacekeeping and the Action for Peacekeeping Plus initiatives. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than three minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. The flashing light on the microphone will prompt speakers to bring their remarks to a close after three minutes. I now give the floor to the representative of Kazakhstan.

Allow me to commend the presidency of the Republic of Korea for convening today’s open debate. We also highly value the briefers’ statements for their comprehensive reports and insightful views on the way forward. Kazakhstan welcomes the comprehensive review mandated by the Pact for the Future and commends the Secretariat for its inclusive and transparent approach to the consultation process. In today’s complex global environment, international peace and security are facing unprecedented challenges. We share the view that the United Nations requires more flexible, adaptive and politically supported response tools, particularly in the face of non-State armed actors, transnational threats, digital risks and the erosion of trust in traditional peacekeeping models. Kazakhstan has consistently advocated rethinking mandate design and resource allocation in United Nations peace operations. We support the need for predictable, adequate and sustainable financing, including the development of more flexible mechanisms for allocating resources on the basis of evolving needs. We also believe that mandates must be politically realistic, context-specific, mobile, compact, technologically equipped and developed in consultation with host countries and affected populations. In the light of emerging challenges such as digital disinformation and the activities of non-State actors, Kazakhstan supports the development of a doctrine on information integrity within the mandates of peace operations. We believe that it is crucial to enhance the capacity of missions to monitor and counter hostile narratives, particularly in conflict zones. Kazakhstan supports the following priorities: strengthening coordination between the political and the peacekeeping components of missions; exploring the introduction of flexible transitional mandate There is an urgent need to strengthen the safety and security of peacekeepers and to ensure strict adherence to international obligations by all parties. In this regard, Kazakhstan strongly condemns the attack against peacekeepers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on 3 September and calls for the prevention of such incidents in the future. As a responsible member of the United Nations, Kazakhstan continues to pay its assessed contributions to the United Nations peacekeeping budget in full and on time. We therefore call for support for the peacekeeping activities of the Organization in this challenging period. We firmly believe that political will and partnership will ensure that United Nations peace operations remain effective and relevant in meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate. I also thank Under-Secretary-General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo, Ms. Jenna Russo and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission for their valuable insights. Our meeting today is truly pertinent, as the United Nations peacekeeping is at a very critical juncture, with many fundamental questions regarding its future role and modalities. But let us start by acknowledging that peacekeeping operations have always been a symbol of multilateralism at its best. The Blue Helmets embody the credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations and a sense of hope and comfort for those in conflict and post-conflict situations that the world is on their side. In facing ever-growing global challenges, rising asymmetrical conflicts and geopolitical rivalries, we must ensure that peacekeeping operations remain an effective and reliable tool for international peace and stability, instead of becoming subject to power politics. Indonesia therefore believes that moving away from United Nations peacekeeping is not the solution. Instead, we must ensure that peacekeeping operations become more agile, more adaptive, more future-ready and more fit for purpose. Against this backdrop, allow me to underline three key points. First, mandates must focus on what really matters. For missions to succeed, mandates must be clear, rooted in realities on the ground and focus on actual needs rather than being overburdened with auxiliary tasks. Realistic mandates that are free from rhetoric would allow for effective implementation. Consulting more closely with host nations and with troop- and police-contributing countries is key, as is close engagement with relevant actors on the ground. Ensuring that local perspectives are heard is essential to nurturing a sense of mutual ownership when it comes to sustaining peace. This will also contribute to informing decision-making that shields peacekeeping operations from narrow political interests and ultimately serves our common purpose. Secondly, we must invest in the safety and security of both civilians and peacekeepers. Optimizing the use of technology will improve situational awareness and increase the operational effectiveness of peacekeeping operations, thereby strengthening the safety of both civilians and peacekeepers in complex environments. Thirdly, the sustainability of resources must be ensured. Without adequate re­ sources, even the best-crafted mandates will remain merely aspirational. We need to continue efforts to expand the financing base for United Nations peacekeeping, includ­ ing through stronger partnerships with regional organizations, international financial The review of peace operations next year, as requested in the Pact for the Future, will provide an opportunity to shape the future of peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping operations must evolve with purpose. They must adapt to new realities while drawing strength from past achievements. Nevertheless, one thing is sure — United Nations peacekeeping must remain an indispensable tool for global peace and security. Rest assured of Indonesia’s commitment to this shared endeavour.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Philippines.

The Philippines aligns itself with the collective vision for the future of United Nations peace operations and believes that these operations must be adapted to face growing challenges and that countries must come together to respond to them. As our President said at the General Assembly three years ago, we must transcend our differences and commit to ending war, upholding justice, respecting human rights and maintaining international peace and security. He also emphasized that, at the same time, the United Nations must forge ahead with its flagship tradition of global peacekeeping. United Nations peace operations must be guided by agility, realism and strong partnerships. To remain fit for purpose, peacekeeping must adapt to evolving challenges such as disinformation, cyberthreats and asymmetric tactics. The Philippines strongly supports the implementation of the study on the future of peacekeeping, to be conducted in close coordination with host countries, regional organizations and local communities to ensure that the proposed models are both legitimate and effective. The Philippines believes that mandates should remain realistic and achievable, developed in close consultation with hosts and troop- and police-contributing countries and regional groups, while advancing long- term peacebuilding objectives. As an experienced and committed peacemaker, the Philippines recognizes that the protection of civilians, gender mainstreaming and human rights remain integral to United Nations peace operations. Women’s meaningful participation and cultural awareness foster trust and enhance effectiveness, as demonstrated by the Philippines’ own success in establishing the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in the southern Philippines. The core capacities of United Nations peace operations must be preserved and strengthened, with the priority placed on prevention, political processes and rapid deployment. At the Secretariat, field experience must be valued in decision-making posts, and planning and analysis must be reinforced to respond quickly to new crises. Member States must meet their financial obligations promptly to ensure financial predictability for United Nations operations. Partnerships with regional organizations and financial institutions can bring added value, but this must be based on transparency, accountability and respect for United Nations principles. We recognize that lasting peace requires political solutions. United Nations operations must reinforce national ownership by supporting locally driven dialogue, reconciliation and inclusive processes, rather than imposing externally driven systems. Regional organizations must also be engaged as partners in mediation and preventive diplomacy, and the Secretary-General’s good offices must be adequately supported to intervene early and constructively. As a reliable partner, committed peacemaker and innovative pathfinder, we reiterate our readiness to increase our engagement and support in peace operations with more Filipinos, including skilled women peacekeepers, on the ground. The Philippines will continue working with all stakeholders to ensure that United Nations peace operations remain credible, effective and responsive to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.

First, I would like to thank the Republic of Korea for organizing this open debate on the Secretary-General’s review of the future of peace operations and reiterate our full support to its trio initiative, together with Pakistan and Denmark. Austria remains a staunch supporter of United Nations peace operations as a vital tool for the maintenance of international peace and security. Some 140,000 Austrians have served in multilateral missions around the world, from Central Africa to Lebanon and the Western Balkans. Peace operations are not a thing of the past. They remain an irreplaceable expression of multilateral engagement in prevention, stabilization and peacebuilding. While fully committing to United Nations peace operations, a renewed focus on political solutions, prevention and mediation must guide our future engagement. In this regard, we welcome that the Council was able to agree on another 16-month renewal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, one of the missions to which Austria is a long-standing troop contributor, ensuring the successful logistics of the mission. Let me share a few thoughts regarding the review of peace operations. First, United Nations missions must become more flexible and agile. For Austria, adaptability in mandate design is not an option, but a necessity. Missions must be able to evolve alongside political realities, ensure effective transitions between mission types and sustain engagement beyond drawdowns. Above all, every mission must be anchored in a clearly defined and politically achievable end state. Secondly, mission planning must become a central focus. The guidelines, mission concepts and mission plans of the Department of Peace Operations, the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and the Department of Operational Support are a welcome step forward, but we encourage the build-up of designated planning capacities and focal points at Headquarters and at the mission level, as well as the systematic involvement of Member States in reviewing new planning instruments. On this note, Austria was honoured to host the Office of Military Affairs leadership retreat in Vienna this summer, with a strong focus on mission planning. Thirdly, the protection of civilians must remain a central pillar of all United Nations peace operations. This requires contingency planning for situations in which civilians are at imminent risk, as well as the development of comprehensive guidance on protection across the full spectrum of missions. Importantly, where United Nations operations work in parallel with regional or coalition-led missions, mandates to protect civilians must be explicit, rooted in international law and supported by accountability mechanisms. Fourthly, partnerships will be essential for the future of peace operations. Austria attaches great importance to strengthening cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, in particular the African Union. We encourage the use of the review to explore joint planning frameworks, common standards on protection and human rights, as well as predictable financing, including through assessed contributions in line with resolution 2719 (2023). Lastly, we must adopt a “one United Nations” approach. We need stronger synergies and system-wide coherence between peacekeeping, special political missions, long-term development efforts and United Nations country teams, while fully making use of the Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Fund. The review should thus take into account broader reform processes, such as the UN80 Initiative, while preserving its own focus. Mr. President, you can count on Austria’s full support for this review. Austria will continue to do its part with humility, responsibility and a deep commitment to

I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate. We commend the Republic of Korea, Denmark and Pakistan for their efforts this year as the trio on peacekeeping. We also thank Under-Secretary- General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo, Ambassador Zahneisen and Ms. Russo for their insightful statements. For eight decades, United Nations peace operations have helped to shorten the duration of conflicts, support political solutions and protect millions of civilians. In a context of geopolitical fragmentation, increasingly complex armed violence, climate-related insecurity, the threat posed by non-State armed groups and violations of international humanitarian law, including repeated attacks against United Nations and humanitarian personnel, the value of such operations remains incontestable. However, they must evolve, which is why we fully support the review of the future of peace operations. Let me highlight three priorities. First, peace missions must become more flexible and better adapted. Mandates must be realistic, based on the needs on the ground and geared towards achievable results, while giving missions the flexibility required to prioritize their tasks. They must remain anchored in strong and inclusive political strategies that prioritize the primacy of politics and involve local actors, including civil society. The comparative advantages of different types of missions, agencies and institutions, such as the Peacebuilding Commission, must be harnessed. This requires innovation and thinking beyond established approaches. The review of the peacebuilding architecture provides an opportunity to make the necessary structural adjustments. Secondly, peace operations must have timely access to predictable financial and human resources, allowing for planning based on intended results and not only on the budget cycle. They must also have the means and the option to use appropriate technologies for the effective implementation of their mandate. Strengthened cooperation with Member States, regional organizations and United Nations agencies would foster better burden-sharing and more efficient use of resources. Planning must cover the entire cycle of work, including the post-operational phase. Lastly, the protection of civilians, which is enshrined in international humanitarian law and human rights law, remains the non-negotiable core of any peace operation. Lasting peace cannot be envisaged without a safe and secure environment for civilians, based on respect for human rights and the implementation of the women and peace and security agenda. Partnerships with regional organizations, international financial institutions and civil society are also essential to strengthen the effectiveness, legitimacy and sustainability of peace operations. The challenges ahead for peace operations are considerable, both for Member States and for the United Nations. We will be able to meet them if we move forward together, united by the same objective: building lasting peace.

I now give the floor to the representative of Colombia.

Allow me to thank the Under-Secretaries-General, the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and Ms. Russo for their valuable contributions. Speaking about the future of United Nations peace operations means reflecting on our capacity to mobilize in response to threats to peace and in support of peace processes. Colombia has advanced with determination on the path towards peace. We My country’s decision to turn to the Security Council to verify the implementation of the Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace is a reflection of our confidence in the Organization and its abilities in vital areas such as building trust and providing political assistance. The special political mission in Colombia has been a key component in the implementation of what was agreed, and its success is also the success of the Council, and a reflection of what is possible when multilateral will is mobilized in support of peace efforts. Colombia would like to highlight three aspects that contribute to the functioning of peace missions based on our experience. First, we would like to underscore the centrality of national ownership and leadership and the value of having precise, focused mandates developed in close coordination with national authorities. Secondly, the ability to carry out the mandate in areas where it is most needed is key. To that end, it is crucial to develop operational capacities in critical or remote zones and to produce reporting that is differentiated by territory. Thirdly, it is important to recognize that peace is sustainable only when the local population is effectively included through a participatory approach and with the full integration of a gender and intersectional perspective and a comprehensive understanding of the structural causes of violence. In this context, stronger communication channels with the United Nations development system present in the country are crucial. The protection of civilians, the women and peace and security agenda and the youth and peace and security agenda, and a human rights approach are crucial in contexts of greater conflict intensity and are fundamental elements for the sustainability of any peace agreement. From my country’s perspective, they hold a central place in the future of peace operations. Colombia, as a future non-permanent member of the Security Council and based on its own experience, is ready to contribute to ensure that United Nations peace operations uphold the principles that 80 years ago gave rise to the formation of this Organization.

I now give the floor to the representative of Türkiye.

I thank the briefers for their insightful remarks. We are facing the highest number of conflicts since the foundation of this Organization. The human cost of crisis is staggering, with millions of people displaced, lives shattered and communities torn apart. Hence, peace operations remain more essential and relevant than ever. Peace operations are among the most visible and effective expressions of multilateralism. They provide a cost-efficient means of conflict management and a vital tool to protect civilians, prevent regional spillovers and help sustainable peace. Despite their shortcomings, they remain among the strongest collective security instruments at our disposal. The leadership of the United Nations in this regard is irreplaceable. Our common objective must be to adapt peace operations to a rapidly evolving global landscape. Today’s missions face complex transnational challenges — terrorism, organized crime, cyber and technological threats. The Pact for the Future reflects Member States’ commitment to shaping peace operations that are better fit for purpose. To remain fit for purpose, operations must be guided by realistic, sequenced mandates, with clear transition and exit strategies, and move away from rigid, one-size-fits-all models. Financing also remains critical. Predictable, sufficient and sustained funding, together with robust accountability and clear benchmarks, will enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the missions. While the practice of United Nations peacekeeping has evolved significantly over the years, three fundamental principles remain central to its success: the consent of the parties, impartiality and the non-use of force except in self-defence and in defence of the mandate. It is clearly stated in the Brahimi report (see S/2000/809) that the consent of the local parties and impartiality should remain the bedrock principles of peacekeeping. As specified in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines, in the absence of such consent, a United Nations peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict and being drawn away from its inherent role of keeping the peace. In this context, we would like to underline the need for the United Nations to seek the consent of the Turkish Cypriot side regarding the activities of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and to remain impartial. Given the long history and controversial record of UNFICYP, this will be a positive progressive step. Peace operations can succeed only when accompanied by political solutions. They are not a substitute for political will, but a support mechanism to create space for dialogue and reconciliation. As a core United Nations function, they remain indispensable. Turkey reaffirms its commitment to the United Nations peace operations and their review with a view to ensuring effective implementation.

I now give the floor to the representative of Guatemala.

We join other speakers in thanking Mr. Lacroix, Ms. DiCarlo, Mr. Zahneisen and Ms. Russo for their important contributions and efforts, and we thank the Republic of Korea for organizing this debate. We agree on the need to deepen discussions on the future of peace operations, in a context of more complex conflicts, limited resources, the worrisome lack of unity in the Council in support of peace operations and uncertainty about the future of some missions with key mandates. Against this backdrop, we believe that it is essential for the Council to strengthen its commitment to comprehensive political solutions that address the root causes of conflicts, prioritizing mediation and dialogue, with a view to building a sustainable and inclusive peace. Furthermore, any effort to draw down or withdraw forces must be carefully planned, incorporating concrete measures to avoid gaps in the protection of civilians and to ensure an effective response to persistent threats. These processes cannot be haphazard. The perspectives of host countries and troop-contributing countries are vital. Guatemala has witnessed first-hand the positive impact of peace operations. Therefore, we firmly believe that linking the human rights and peacekeeping agendas can bring about a paradigm shift. We consider it crucial to enhance preventive and peacebuilding approaches, taking advantage of the role of the Peacebuilding Commission and of synergies with United Nations agencies, financial institutions and regional organizations. It is essential to make full and coordinated use of the capacities of the United Nations system as a whole in host countries. In this context, From our experience with the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala, we recognize that legitimate political commitment, inter-agency cooperation, the availability of adequate resources, access to accurate information, international support and, above all, local ownership through the active participation of civil society are critical factors for peacekeeping and peacebuilding. We hope that the Secretary-General’s review will reflect these lessons learned. Guatemala will remain a partner in collective efforts to strengthen peace operations, in order to make peace missions more effective and thereby ensure the success of transition processes.

I now give the floor to the representative of Latvia.

I thank the Republic of Korea for its leadership and for convening this important debate, which follows meetings on peace operations that were held at the request of Denmark and Pakistan. I also thank the briefers — Under-Secretary- General Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General DiCarlo, Ambassador Zahneisen and Ms. Russo — for their insightful contributions. United Nations peace operations remain an essential instrument for maintaining international peace and security. They have a proven track record of contributing to stability in regions across the world. However, we are witnessing a growing crisis of confidence in these operations, stemming from a lack of political support and finan­ cial constraints. The review on the future of United Nations peace operations offers an opportunity to address this crisis and chart a path forward. As an incoming member of the Security Council, Latvia is committed to prioritizing United Nations deployments. While peace operations are complex endeavours, the success of which depends on myriad factors, today I will focus on three elements, namely, embedding peace operations within the overall United Nations peace continuum, rethinking the approach to their mandates and equipping them with up-to-date tools. First, peace operations should serve as means to achieve political results. They must be closely aligned with other United Nations lines of action, including mediation, peacebuilding and development assistance. Furthermore, they should remain adaptable as situations evolve. From the outset, clear benchmarks should be established to enable the timely rightsizing and transition of peace operations, in line with the conditions on the ground. Secondly, we need to revisit the approach to the mandates of peace operations. The Council should reassert its role of providing strategic guidance for the crafting of realistic mandates that advance political objectives and foster unity of purpose among the host nation, troop-contributing countries, police-contributing countries and local communities. The mandates need to be clear and tailored to the specific context, reflecting the comparative advantage of peace operations over other tools. While focusing on core tasks, we must remember that the legitimacy of peace operations depends on their ability to address the needs on the ground, including by protecting civilians and upholding human rights. Thirdly, while mandates provide the blueprint, peace operations require the right tools to translate those mandates into reality. In order to meet today’s challenges, operations must harness modern technology as a force multiplier. Emerging tools, such as artificial intelligence and unmanned systems, can enhance situational awareness and operational efficiency. They can also help to counter threats that themselves arise from technology, in particular the spread of disinformation targeting peacekeepers. Significant progress has been made, including the adoption United Nations peace operations are among the most cost-effective instruments in the international community’s arsenal. The review of United Nations peace operations is taking place as the United Nations as a whole undergoes transformation through the UN80 Initiative. These two efforts should proceed in lockstep, reinforcing one another and contributing to a renewed commitment to the United Nations and to peace operations.

There are still a number of speakers remaining on my list for this meeting. I intend, with the concurrence of members of the Council, to suspend the meeting until 3 p.m. this afternoon.