OPINION | The vanishing Blue Helmets: Is the UN losing relevance?

The United Nations was created in the aftermath of the Second World War to collectively maintain international peace and security and to minimise the possibility of conflicts. The Preamble to its Charter highlights the intent of its founders by stating: “We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

The UN Charter envisages both United Nations and regional interventions to settle disputes within as well as between countries. It lays down provisions for the pacific settlement of disputes in Chapter VI and, in Chapter VII, specifies more robust measures such as sanctions and military intervention in situations where peaceful settlement proves ineffective.

In its initial years, the United Nations took a number of far-reaching initiatives and framed several international laws and conventions aimed at regulating conflicts and protecting the lives, rights and dignity of ordinary citizens affected by wars and violence across the world. Among the most significant are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Refugee Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture.

The rise of the Blue Helmets

As far as peace and security are concerned, the peacekeepers, popularly referred to as the “Blue Helmets”, are the most visible face of the United Nations. Soldiers from member states are deployed in conflict zones authorised by the United Nations Security Council resolutions. They operate under clearly defined mandates and represent the collective will, responsibility and decision-making of the international community. Their functioning is guided by the core principles of United Nations peacekeeping — consent of the parties, impartiality and the non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate. Their role encompasses conflict mitigation, conflict management, conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

For almost four decades after the Second World War, United Nations peacekeeping remained largely in the background as Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union limited the scope of collective action. Most missions were traditional observer deployments, such as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East and the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. The first large United Nations peacekeeping force was deployed during the Suez Crisis in 1956. Subsequently, the Congo operation of the early 1960s marked a major evolution in UN peacekeeping, with peacekeepers authorised to use force beyond self-defence in certain circumstances. India played a significant role in that mission.

The post-Cold War expansion

With increasing consensus in the United Nations Security Council after the end of the Cold War, the scope of UN peacekeeping expanded dramatically. Complex, multidimensional missions with wider mandates became the norm. As a result, the peacekeeping budget increased from about 141 million dollars in 1985 to over 3.3 billion dollars by 1995, an unprecedented rise within a decade. Large missions were deployed in Cambodia, Cyprus, Kuwait, Angola, Western Sahara, Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, Mozambique, and the former Yugoslavia.

The number of deployed personnel also surged. At its peak, the United Nations fielded almost 110,000 uniformed peacekeepers across the globe, supported by thousands of civilian staff. This expanded role, however, also exposed shortcomings related to Security Council discords, doctrinal ambiguities, operational deficiencies and financial constraints. These challenges prompted major reforms, most notably the recommendations of the Brahimi Panel, which led to the concept of “robust peacekeeping”.

During this period, particularly after the “Millennium Summit” convened by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, hopes rose that the United Nations would emerge as the principal “peacekeeper” of the world. The organisation appeared poised to play a central role in conflict prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction.

The gradual decline

However, this optimism proved short-lived. Consensus within the Security Council began to erode, and resources for peacekeeping became increasingly constrained. At the same time, major powers increasingly resorted to coalitions of willing states, regional arrangements and direct military interventions. The United States-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq reflected this trend.

Gradually, the universal face of conflict management represented by the United Nations “Blue Helmets” began to give way to multinational coalitions and ad hoc arrangements. As permanent members of the Security Council themselves became parties to major geopolitical disputes, the United Nations was increasingly relegated to the margins of decision-making and conflict resolution efforts.

An organisation on the sidelines

By the end of 2025, the number of United Nations peacekeepers deployed worldwide had fallen to approximately 75,000, the lowest in over two decades. The United Nations today is either absent or largely confined to the margins of many of the world's major conflicts. Most of its remaining large peacekeeping operations are concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa.
This does not bode well for the future of the multilateral conflict-management architecture envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations. The organisation that was intended to be the principal instrument for maintaining international peace and security is increasingly becoming a spectator to events rather than a central actor.

The cost of bypassing the United Nations

Regrettably, much of the responsibility for this state of affairs lies with the major powers that are supposed to be the principal custodians of the United Nations system. The permanent members of the Security Council have increasingly bypassed the United Nations and relied upon alternative mechanisms such as the Troika process in South Sudan, the Normandy Format in Ukraine, the Astana Process for Syria, regional initiatives led by the African Union and various ad hoc contact groups and coalitions to address conflicts.

While some of these arrangements have produced useful outcomes, they lack the universal legitimacy, inclusiveness and institutional continuity that the United Nations alone can provide.

A warning for the future

The slow but steady erosion of United Nations influence and the continuing reduction in the number of “Blue Helmets”, despite a world witnessing increasing conflicts and instability, should be a matter of concern for all nations.

If this trend continues unchecked, the world risks moving towards an era where conflict management becomes fragmented, selective and dependent on the interests of powerful states rather than on universally accepted norms. That would undermine the very purpose for which the United Nations was established.

The founders of the United Nations created the organisation to prevent the recurrence of catastrophic global wars. Weakening it without creating a credible alternative may ultimately lead the international community towards the very outcome they sought to avoid.