UN peacekeeping faces an existential crisis. Despite a dramatic upsurge in violent conflict globally, no new UN peacekeeping operations have been authorized in over a decade, and multidimensional missions featuring blue helmets have lost their vogue. The Trump administration has declared the United States would no longer pay its annually assessed dues for peacekeeping, a legally binding obligation under the UN Charter, potentially depriving the world body of a quarter of its budget. At the same time, it has agreed to fund specialized operations, including in Haiti, Lebanon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on an à la carte basis.

Peacekeeping has always been an imperfect instrument, hobbled by sometimes unrealistic mandates, shifting geopolitical support, recurrent liquidity crises, and occasional scandals involving peacekeeping troops themselves. Still, it remains the most cost-effective tool to reduce death and conflict, including in circumstances where the United States has no desire to put boots on the ground. It has saved—and continues to save—lives around the world, from Kosovo to Liberia to South Sudan.

What does the future of peacekeeping look like—something lighter, or different altogether, and what risks would that pose? What are the costs of losing U.S. support, financial or otherwise? Will other countries reinvest in traditional UN peacekeeping and can regional organizations help pick up the slack?  And how can peacekeeping evolve to be more nimble and relevant?

To shed light on these and other questions, please join Carnegie’s Global Order and Institution Program director and senior fellow Stewart Patrick for a conversation with Eugene Chen, non-resident advisor at the International Peace Institute, Lise Howard, professor at Georgetown University, and Dan Forti, head of UN Affairs at International Crisis Group.