Statement by H.E. Sanita Pav'luta-Deslandes at the UN Security Council Debate on Peacekeeping
18 September 2026
Mr President,
We thank France presidency for convening this timely debate on peacekeeping and the Secretary-General for his exposé and for honoring us with his presence. I welcome His Excellency Mr Javier Martinez Acha Vasquez, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Panama to this meeting.
UN peacekeeping missions have been amongst the most successful and efficient instruments for maintaining international peace and security. They have a proven track record of contributing to stability across diverse regions. We hear the proposal by the Secretary‑General to “reset” UN peace operations to adapt them to current needs and realities. Latvia welcomes the publication of the Review of all forms of future peace operations, which should serve as a clear catalyst to mobilize our collective efforts in this regard.
Mr President,
UN peacekeeping missions are ultimately deployed to support political solutions to conflict, ideally when there is a ceasefire or peace to keep – to quote the Secretary-General. Operating alongside other UN, regional, and member state actors, they are one part of a broader, complex puzzle. When considering why no new UN peacekeeping missions have been deployed for more than a decade, we therefore must assess the nature of current conflicts and the role of the UN in addressing these conflicts. This role is changing as a result of the multiplication of actors involved in peacemaking, with regional organizations often assuming a leading position. The ongoing UN reform efforts, together with the selection process for the next Secretary‑General, offer an opportunity for the UN to better identify its comparative advantages and reassert a more proactive role for peacekeeping. At the same time, we must ensure that UN peacekeeping remains up‑to‑date and capable of operating in complex political and security environments. Let me outline three points in this regard.
First, mission mandates, crafted and approved by the Council, play a crucial role in determining mission success. There have been long‑standing calls for clear political objectives, more targeted, realistic and context-adapted mandates with timely exit strategies and adequate resources, yet opportunities to pursue this goal have not always been seized. Going forward, each mandate renewal should be informed by objective assessments of results and remaining needs, measuring performance against clear benchmarks, not merely activities. This requires sufficient time and space for proper consultations among Council members and a clear picture of available options. And above all – unity of purpose among the members of the Security Council.
Furthermore, mission requirements may shift considerably throughout mission’s lifecycle. Engagement with the host nation is critical to manage expectations and right‑size the mission. Dialogue should also involve host communities, who are most affected by mission performance and should have a voice in determining the mission’s future. Missions may not require radical adjustments during each renewal cycle, but mandate roll‑overs should be the exception rather than the norm. The commitment expressed in the Review to a more proactive role for the Secretariat during mandate renewals will be essential to reinvigorate this process.
Second, missions must be tailored to the exact circumstances they face. Whether their role is limited to a ceasefire monitoring or involves a multidimensional presence, mission design should reflect the political and security challenges on the ground rather than follow predetermined blueprints. While we second the aspiration toward lighter and more mobile mission footprints, we also recognize that some key tasks such as protection of civilians are often more resource intensive than others. We therefore encourage the study on key military and police capabilities initiated by the Review to pursue a holistic approach.
The rigid distinction between peacekeeping missions and special political missions may also merit further reflection, as a coherent peace operations toolbox requires these instruments to be used complimentarily in way that avoids duplication. No matter what the missions' tasks may be, they should be matched with adequate resources, while ensuring clear accountability for performance and measurable impact. This also requires the readiness to adjust missions, when they no longer meet their mandated objectives, or conclude missions, in line with clear exit strategies.
Third, while the transformation of UN peacekeeping depends first and foremost on political commitment, leveraging technology will be critical to turning this aspiration into reality. We need to ensure that missions become more effective in an operational environment marked by the increasing use of AI, cyber tools, drones, and information campaigns by state and non‑state actors alike. Technological adaptation is a complex task, shaped by relations with host nations, the technical capabilities of troop‑ and police‑contributing countries, as well as planning and resource management at the UN level. The approach must therefore be comprehensive - covering capabilities, training, and mission‑wide integration - while also being agile to keep pace with rapid technological advancements. The success in this endeavor will depend on a change in mindset rather than administrative adjustments.
Mr President,
To conclude, the task of adapting UN peacekeeping is immense. Yet this instrument has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to evolve, and this moment should be no different. Our success will depend on the commitment and engagement of Security Council members, the Secretariat, troop‑ and police‑contributing countries, host nations, and international partners. As both a Security Council member and a TCC, Latvia remains committed to playing an active role in these efforts throughout its Council term.
Thank you.