UN budget crisis: Will Pacific peacekeepers pay the price?
Suva—The United Nations, formed after World War II as a platform for negotiation, arbitration, diplomacy and peacebuilding, is currently grappling with a serious financial crisis.
For the Pacific island countries that send military and police personnel to serve under the United Nations flag in conflict zones, the organization’s liquidity crisis is no longer a distant problem in New York; its effects could reach far beyond its headquarters. Thus, it raises serious questions about unpaid bills, future deployments and who will be willing to carry the cost of keeping peace.
Fiji, which provides trained personnel to help keep peace in countries affected by conflicts, is already feeling the pressure. The nation has been deploying military and police peacekeepers for over 48 years. It sent its first infantry battalion to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on June 10, 1978.
In August this year, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka called on the UN to settle outstanding peacekeeping payments, which he said could have supported healthcare, transport, education and other essential services. His message brought a global financial crisis down to a local question: How long can a small island country like Fiji keep paying upfront for an international responsibility?
If the current budget crisis persists and wealthy UN member states fail to meet their financial obligations, peacekeepers from the Pacific island nations could face fewer deployment opportunities and reduced overseas support. They could also face longer waits for repayment for the job they have already delivered.
While there is no confirmed Pacific-wide withdrawal plan, the risks are real and the impact on individual countries remains uncertain.
The UN financial crisis is caused by some member-countries’ unfulfilled promises and failure to pay their required contributions in full and on time, leaving the organization with permission to allocate budget on various projects around the world when it does not actually have the money.
Peacekeeping missions need logistics, transport, equipment and trained personnel to carry out the job, even when payments from member countries arrive late. When member states approve the UN budget, that does not fill a mission’s bank account. However, they expect that the UN peacekeeping missions must continue uninterrupted.
In October 2025, the UN warned that the funding shortage will force missions to reduce patrols, close field offices and lay off thousands of peacekeepers
currently serving in various conflict zones to maintain peace.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has ordered peacekeeping missions to identify spending reductions equal to 15 percent of their annual budgets. Because the cuts had to be made within a shortened period, the UN said they would translate into roughly a quarter fewer uniformed and civilian personnel. These figures describe the broader peacekeeping response, not a confirmed 25 percent reduction across the Pacific contingent.
An analysis by New York University’s Center on International Cooperation indicates that during cash shortages, the UN delays equipment and personnel reimbursements. This will, arguably, result in reputational damage to the UN and its future promises to maintain peace around the world.
In August this year, Prime Minister Rabuka, speaking after meeting UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix in Nadi, stated that the UN had not reimbursed Fiji “a few hundred million dollars.” For a small economy, this figure is quite significant. The prime minister noted that the money tied up in peacekeeping was money unavailable to address social development needs in Fiji.
It is important to distinguish between the UN's government repayments and soldiers’ salaries. A delayed UN reimbursement does not mean that a Fijian peacekeeper has missed a salary payment. The government of Fiji will have to bear the financial burden while waiting for reimbursement from the UN. This will put pressure on the national budget, forcing the government to cut spending in other areas, potentially affecting social services and economic growth.
In June this year, Defense Minister Pio Tikoduadua stated that proposed peacekeeping missions will be assessed to ensure that taxpayers will not be burdened unfairly.
In its 2025–2026 budget review, the Fiji government set aside FJ$52 million for overseas peacekeeping missions. This was part of the military’s FJ$168 million budget.
The budget review does not mean that Fiji will withdraw from UN peacekeeping missions. However, Defense Permanent Secretary Mason Smith emphasized that the government needed to consider whether maintaining, changing or expanding deployments would be “cost-neutral” for Fiji.
ADVERTISEMENT
It is a difficult calculation and challenging choice to make. Peacekeeping is a public service, but it still requires public money. Contributing governments
must weigh overseas commitments against demands for hospitals, schools, policing, transport and provision of other social services.
UN peacekeeping missions create opportunities for many low-income households in many Pacific island countries. However, the existing reports do not specify how many Pacific households would lose income or whether specific allowances would change. These impacts should not be presented as settled facts.
The concern is not only about who comes home but also what happens to those who remain on duty in conflict zones. According to the UN report, spending reductions will affect patrols, protection duties, logistics, air operations, civilian support, and overall peacekeeping operations.
For the Pacific peacekeeping personnel currently serving in countries affected by armed conflict, the key question is whether resources still match the tasks they are expected to perform.
Although there has been some progress to address the liquidity crisis, the full recovery has not taken place yet. In June, the UN General Assembly’s budget committee agreed to change a financial rule that had caused the budgetary shortage in the first place.
Previously, the multilateral organization could be required to repay member countries even when the funds had never been received.
The new approach, agreed for a four-year trial, ties those credits to cash actually received. Although it is a practical repair, UN officials have stressed that member-countries must still pay their dues fully and on time in order to avoid future liquidity crises.
The committee has also approved a US$5.1 billion peacekeeping budget for 2026-2027, which is good news for maintaining peace and stability globally and preventing flare-ups in conflict zones.
For small island nations of the Pacific region, another distinction matters. The UN development programs operating in island countries do not all draw from the same funding pool as peacekeeping missions. Pacific programs had separate funding arrangements.
Against that backdrop, the Pacific governments are now facing a test of how much uncertainty they can absorb.
The issue is not whether Pacific island countries value peacekeeping
missions; it is whether the international community will provide dependable funding for the work it asks them to do.
Therefore, it is important for the UN and small island member states to develop a new roadmap that benefits both parties.
First, member countries with outstanding dues should pay their contributions in full and promptly.
Second, the UN should provide troop-contributing countries with clear information about its financial position, planned spending and any changes that could affect their personnel.
Third, Fiji and other Pacific governments should assess the financial risks of their peacekeeping commitments. This includes reviewing the costs of deployments, the reliability of UN payments and the support available to personnel serving in peacekeeping missions overseas.
Finally, Pacific governments should work together to raise their concerns through regional organizations and at the United Nations. By speaking collectively, they can draw greater attention to the needs of Pacific island countries that contribute to international peace.
Dr. Saber Salem is an associate professor of International Relations and Diplomacy at the University of Fiji. The views expressed in the column are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Fiji or the Pacific Island Times.
Subscibe to
our digital
monthly issue
