Was South Sudan a test for shaping US peace operations policy?
The UN mission’s mandate was eventually renewed, but concerns about a US retreat from peace support operations abound.
Published on 16 September 2025 in
ISS Today
By
Meressa K Dessu
Senior Researcher and Training Coordinator, ISS Addis Ababa
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) renewed the mandate of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) on 8 May, allowing the peace support operation to continue its work for another year.
The mandate renewal process raised important questions about the future of United States (US) policy on UNMISS and UN peace operations in general. The US’ role in all UN peace operations over the decades, particularly in South Sudan, has been significant.
UNMISS was established in 2011 to help South Sudan, the newest UN member state, to tackle conflict and state building. When civil war erupted in 2013, the mission’s mandate to support peace consolidation and state capacity building shifted to prioritising civilian protection.
When the warring parties signed the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) in 2018, UNMISS was tasked with supporting the peace agreement’s implementation.
Priorities in the mission’s latest mandate include protecting civilians, helping to implement the R-ARCSS, and monitoring human rights.
Since 2005, the US has invested over US$1.5 billion in helping 55 countries with UN peace operation personnel
UNMISS’ scope of work highlights both its importance and limitations. The mission has been vital in sheltering civilians and enabling humanitarian access. Yet its effectiveness has been stymied by persistent resource shortfalls and the repeated failure of parties in South Sudan to honour the peace agreement. This mixed record provided the backdrop for debates on whether the mandate should be renewed.
Since UNMISS’s inception, the US has played a leading role in tabling the agendas and draft mandate of the mission at the UNSC. Two weeks before the mission’s mandate was set to expire on 30 April, the US submitted a draft resolution, which led to disagreement among council members, raising questions about the US’ shifting position on the role of UNMISS.
Key disagreements were twofold, the Security Council Report noted. First, the US proposed applying more political pressure on South Sudan’s leaders, who frequently failed to implement key aspects of the peace deal. This indicated some US interest in continuing the mission under the right political environment, but Russia and China objected. They wanted a more measured approach that avoided placing undue pressure on South Sudanese authorities.
Second, the US introduced new terminologies that replaced previously agreed-on language. For example, ‘sexual and gender-based violence’ was replaced with ‘violence against women and girls.’ Wording on misinformation and disinformation was removed, and ‘climate change’ was replaced with ‘environmental change’ or ‘natural disasters’. These changes reflect domestic policy under President Donald Trump’s second administration, including on gender and climate issues.
On 29 August, a White House report said the president wanted to cancel US$838 million for peace operations
Several council members, particularly from Europe and Africa, opposed the language changes, saying they eroded the UNSC’s established normative standard. The US then tabled a fourth draft resolution, which reinstated most of the previously agreed wording and was finally adopted.
Why did the US want to change existing UNSC language, and does this reflect a major policy shift on UN peace operations, which the US was testing on UNMISS?
A US policy analyst told ISS Today: ‘The changes reflect an effort by the US Administration to maintain its leadership role in fostering peace in South Sudan while better aligning the mission and the UN with its current policy priorities.’
He said rather than indicating a shifting peace operations policy, ‘The US’s attempt to apply more pressure on [South Sudan’s] government … as part of the mandate’s language reflects frustration at the absence of political will and commitment of the conflicting parties and the leadership of the transitional government of South Sudan.’
The US had ‘invested a lot for over a decade to transform conflict, but the return yields so far [were] too small or none,’ he said.
The US decision to withdraw its small contingent of peacekeepers from UNMISS in April, as its mandate was being negotiated, reinforces these views. The US personnel were military staff officers supporting planning, logistics, operations and civil-military coordination. The official reason for the withdrawal wasn’t clear. Some analysts said it was for peacekeepers’ safety, reminiscent of previous UN mission departures.
The UN is reviewing all forms of peace operations to ensure their adaptability to the current threat landscape
In 2022, the US withdrew from the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of the R-ACRSS, citing the country’s failure to meet agreed reform milestones. These included opening political space and improving public finance management, security and accountability.
Other developments also point to a changing US stance on UN peace operations. In April 2025, the US proposed ‘scrapping UN peacekeeping funding.’ Then at the May UN Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin, the US was not among the more than 74 countries pledging contributions, including finance and logistics.
On 29 August, a White House report said the president was deploying a ‘pocket rescission’ to cancel US$5 billion budgeted for international organisations and foreign aid, including about US$838 million for peace operations.
Cutting peace operations funding severely limits the UN’s ability to protect civilians in conflict areas like South Sudan. The US has long played a leading role in peace missions as the largest financial contributor, giving up to 27% of the US$5.6 billion UN peace operations annual budget for 2024 and 2025. Since 2005, it has invested over US$1.5 billion in helping about 55 countries with UN peace operation military and police personnel.
Another analyst told ISS Today there were contradictions in US policy towards UN peace operations, saying: ‘The US seems to step back from the multilateral system including peace operations, yet it is [unclear] whether Washington will have a policy shift on peace operations as hot policy debates are ongoing.’
There is increasing recognition of the continued relevance of UN peace operations, not least because there is no viable alternative to meet the growing demand for a response to conflicts.
The UN is reviewing all forms of peace operations to ensure their adaptability to the current threat landscape. This gives the US an opportunity to consider its policy on strengthening UN missions within the multilateral approach. Operations like UNMISS would struggle to function without the US’ financial and political support.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
