Time for bold reforms to rescue UN missions in the Middle East

The bottom line

• The Middle East is a geopolitical battleground where proxy wars and foreign interventions derail any meaningful progress towards peace. The UN is caught in the middle, powerless against the influence of non-state actors and major power rivalries.

• Chronic funding deficiencies are crippling critical UN programmes, leaving millions without essential services and demonstrating the UN’s inability to follow through on its promises of peace and stability.

• Instead of continuing ineffective military peacekeeping operations, the UN must overhaul its command structure to allow for genuine, democratic decision-making and implement reforms that prioritise diplomacy over military intervention.

As the Middle East remains embroiled in conflict, the sustainability of United Nations (UN) operations in the region is likely to be called into question. In fact, it fuels the call by rising middle powers for the establishment of a more fit-for-purpose organisation to take its place.

The UN’s various peacekeeping missions, including the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), alongside refugee support mechanisms like the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), struggle to keep pace with a rapidly evolving military and political landscape. These efforts, aimed at monitoring ceasefires and assisting displaced populations, increasingly appear inadequate to address the region’s growing crises. The recent attacks on UNIFIL troops in Lebanon underscore the UN’s vulnerability and its lack of authority and oversight to effectively function in this volatile environment.

What is clear is that the UN must adapt. Without structural changes, its mandate will continue to be undermined when they are most critically needed. For UN missions to maintain credibility in the Middle East, the organisation must confront several challenges head-on – and redefine its approach in the region.

Major powers vs. peacekeepers

The Middle East has long been subject to the political involvements and interventions of major powers, each wielding their influence to advance their own national interests. Whether in the form of US bases or Russian intervention, this continues to be the case today.

These major powers occupy prominent seats at the UN table: the US oversees agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Programme, China manages the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, while Russia handles the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). This structure enables their interests to take precedence over global diplomatic efforts.

The same is true of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), where five permanent members – the US, Russia, China, France and the UK – hold significant influence through their veto power, allowing them to block substantive resolutions as they see fit. This structure has obstructed critical peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, with the US using its veto 49 times since 1970 to block resolutions critical of Israel, while Russia and China have similarly blocked interventions in Syria. This structure limits UN peacekeeping legislation to symbolic calls for action rather than mandates that impact the situation on the ground.

Another important factor to consider in the Middle East is the rise of non-state actors and their growing influence. Groups such as Hezbollah, the Islamic State and various local militias play critical roles in shaping the nature of conflict and peace in the region, often holding de facto control over territory, resources and populations. These groups are not represented in the UN or its system – in fact, their existence runs counter to the UN’s core principles: state sovereignty and the importance of engaging with the legitimate and internationally recognised government in any given country.

The failure of UN bodies and missions to recognise and engage with non-state actors like these demonstrates the organisation’s inability to accurately assess the realities on the ground, severely hindering the effectiveness of its peacekeeping mandates. The involvement of non-state actors is not just relevant; it is essential for achieving lasting, viable solutions.

The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon exposed the impotence of UNIFIL’s tripartite mechanism, which excluded Hezbollah from discussions and focused narrowly on Lebanese state-building. With the Lebanese state dysfunctional and Hezbollah (formerly) dominant in the South, this approach has merely upheld the status quo. The success of the recent ceasefire cannot be attributed to UNIFIL but instead to US and French mediation and diplomatic pressure. Even within the ceasefire’s framework, UNIFIL remains sidelined, with France and the US taking the lead in ensuring its proper implementation and preventing violations. The establishment of their own oversight committees is a stark indictment of UNIFIL’s ineffectiveness.

Can the UN afford to stay?

The UN is focused on setting overly ambitious and often unachievable targets, rather than prioritising practical, realistic solutions that would be simpler and more attainable. This approach has led to significant financial mismanagement and growing donor fatigue, with the result that, in the words of UNHCR head Filippo Grandi, the Middle East “cannot afford a new displacement crisis.” 

Global peacekeeping operations currently cost approximately $6 bn annually, supporting around 70,000 personnel—a decline from $8 bn in 2015. Many funding organisations now warn that they are operating on the brink of bankruptcy, raising serious concerns about their ability to provide essential services. The UNHCR has already been forced to reduce its 2024 budget for operations in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen by $93m. Even with these cuts, it still requires $2.3 bn to sustain its operations in the MENA region for 2024. As of October 2024, it faces a staggering funding shortfall of $1.43 bn (61%) which underscores the severe financial strain, threatening critical support for these countries amid escalating regional crises.

The gap between promised funding and the actual amounts received highlights a significant disconnect in the international aid system, also driven by bureaucratic inefficiencies and shifting political priorities. Crises such as the war in Ukraine and climate disasters have diverted funding from longstanding missions, as seen in the exponential decline of aid to Syria, while the UNHCR’s annual flexible funding dropped by 30% in 2023, largely due to resources being redirected to the Ukraine crisis. Consequently, UNHCR reports show that key countries are receiving only a fraction of the pledged support, with Lebanon funded at just 16%, Syria at 10%, Yemen at 11% and Jordan at 10% underscoring the decreased capacity of UN crisis support mechanisms.

Politics has always been a major obstacle to funding humanitarian missions, but as the UN prepares for Donald Trump to return to office, the situation could become even more dire. Trump’s history of undermining global humanitarian efforts is well-documented: during his previous term, he attempted to slash US funding to UN peacekeeping by nearly $500m in 2017 and drastically reduced support for UNRWA. This pattern of disengagement, if revived, would further destabilise the already fragile humanitarian landscape.

Israel’s recent decision to ban UNRWA, compounded by the US freeze on its funding until at least March 2025, only deepens these challenges. In 2023, 5.9m people were eligible for UNRWA services, with roughly 2m in Gaza alone depending on its support. Yet, with 1.1m people in Gaza – half the population – facing catastrophic food insecurity, and over 50,000 children in urgent need of treatment for acute malnutrition, the funding gap is more critical than ever. UNRWA has requested $1.2bn to meet immediate needs in Gaza and the West Bank, but this shortfall will only grow as the conflict continues. Meanwhile, Lebanon, grappling with its own crisis, has issued a Flash Appeal for $425.7m to support its population through the end of 2024.

On the one hand, peacekeeping missions are becoming increasingly costly and risky, resulting in greater ineffectiveness that exacerbates the humanitarian situation on the ground. On the other hand, UNICEF and the UNHCR are struggling to address rising displacement and refugee crises amid ongoing budget cuts. Political agendas further complicate these challenges by diverting funding to other crises or reducing funding for essential agencies like UNRWA, on which millions depend for their survival. This raises significant concerns about the viability of UN operations moving forward and how long they can continue to function before reaching a point at which they must decrease their capacity and halt operations and missions altogether.

What needs to shift for UN survival?

For the UN to ensure the survival of its operations, whether they be peacekeeping or humanitarian, a critical shift is needed in its approach to peace and security.

Establish accountability, starting with the UNSC 

Regulating the use of veto power in the UNSC will be crucial if the UN is to facilitate effective ceasefires and uphold the international order. Solutions could include expanding the UNSC to include more permanent members or revisiting the structure of the veto system so that no single power could block a resolution.

Additionally, establishing a clear framework that imposes strict consequences on any actors undermining peacekeeping efforts would enhance the UN’s ability to implement viable solutions. The impunity exercised by superpowers threatens the sustainability and effectiveness of peacekeeping missions, as seen in missed ceasefire opportunities, violations of buffer zones and territorial invasions. Ensuring accountability – through mechanisms like economic sanctions or limits on veto use – would be the first step to returning some much-needed authority to the UN.

Alter the funding structure 

The UN’s current funding structure has proven to be flawed and unsustainable. To improve the effectiveness and long-term viability of its initiatives, the UN could consider exploring public-private sector partnerships. These partnerships would provide the necessary resources and flexibility to implement innovative solutions. This way, the UN would diversify its funding sources, thereby reducing its dependence on a limited number of donor nations that are vulnerable to political shifts and economic headwinds. Well-managed partnerships would ensure a more stable and continuous flow of resources while helping to mitigate donor fatigue.

Engage local and non-state actors 

The UN must approach peacebuilding with a more realistic understanding of local dynamics by fostering deeper cooperation with civil society, NGOs and grassroots movements. This is not just an idealistic approach – it’s essential for ensuring that peace initiatives address the actual needs and cultural contexts of the communities they aim to help. By actively involving these local actors, the UN can enhance the effectiveness of its interventions and provide greater agency to those on the ground.

Engaging non-state actors is also crucial for ensuring that ceasefire agreements are respected; their insights and influence are often pivotal in maintaining stability. Without their involvement, the UN risks creating an artificial peace that lacks the local buy-in necessary to sustain it, leaving the situation fragile and prone to collapse.

A hopeful but fragile future

As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary in 2025, these imperfections – and what it is doing to address them – will come under increased scrutiny. The sustainability of UN missions in the Middle East hangs in the balance, with the organisation grappling with the urgent need for serious reform, funding and restructuring while responding to ongoing and critical crises across the region. Without implementing these changes, missions are likely to continue to focus on short-term goals, jeopardising both their effectiveness and the safety of their personnel.

The critical question now is whether the UN has the will to impose its mandate amid rising geopolitical tensions, or whether it will continue to be overshadowed by the agendas of major powers. Thus far, the UN’s members have shown little appetite for meaningful reform or putting regional stability ahead of their own interests. Altering this status quo must be the first item on the agenda if the UN is to become a credible force for peace in the region.

Image source: CC by 4.0 International