After years of intense conflict, I felt some hope from President Trump’s recent announcement regarding a Peace Agreement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Ministers from Rwanda and Congo visited the Oval Office to discuss plans aimed at resolving a war that has claimed 7,000 lives and forced many others to evacuate in just the early months of this year. This was, honestly, a surprising and necessary development.
I’ve witnessed the toll of this conflict first-hand. In 2016, I took a UN helicopter to a rural village near the Rwanda-Congo border. There, UN peacekeepers formed the only barrier between the villagers and the imminent threats from militia attacks.
As we were about to depart, a woman approached us, desperately asking for a ride. She was afraid that the peacekeepers might leave her behind. That moment has stayed with me since.
Today, the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo remains a vital lifeline for countless civilians caught in the chaos. Unfortunately, the situation is dire; the mission comprises over 13,500 personnel and struggles under the threat of the Rwandan-supported M23 rebel group, which is sweeping through eastern Congo and seizing key cities like Goma.
Yet, despite these challenges, the UN peacekeeping forces continue to persevere in protecting civilians.
Their task has become increasingly complex, but it’s also more critical than ever. The new peace agreement set out from Washington includes a 30-day deadline for regional security frameworks, followed by a 90-day deadline for economic integration.
In an ideal world, the Congolese government would demobilize Rwandan-backed militias while Rwandan troops withdraw from Congolese land.
However, diplomacy is just part of the solution here. This is where the UN peacekeeping mission plays an essential role.
A peace on paper means little if not executed effectively. Guinea’s Bintu Keita, the chief UN diplomat in this part of the world, has the experience necessary to ensure that all aspects of the agreement are acted upon. With its extensive local presence, UN missions are crucial for building trust, checking compliance, and swiftly addressing any resurgence of violence.
In fact, there’s already been progress. Just last June, the UN supported a ceasefire in the Ituri Province, involving six armed groups. This quiet but significant achievement is a step toward curbing violence from other insurgent factions in eastern Congo, including the Ugandan Allied Democratic Forces linked to various terrorist networks.
Yet, calls for closing the UN peacekeeping mission persist. It costs nearly $1 billion annually, making it one of the UN’s costliest operations. The Congolese government has also pushed for a reduction in troop numbers, a process which began when South Kivu regained control in April 2024.
However, a review last fall indicated that key security benchmarks were not being met. Military forces lack readiness, the legal system is understaffed, and demobilization efforts are lagging behind. Reducing funds now would be akin to pulling the parachute from someone mid-descent.
And that’s precisely what’s happening.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers enacted a budget plan that drastically slashed UN peacekeeping funds, including those for Congo. This move circumvented the normal funding process and sparked concern across party lines. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called it “illegal final executions around Congress.”
Many are concerned that this action sets a worrying precedent by undermining foreign policy initiatives without proper legislative review.
The stakes are high.
China has consistently increased its funding and military involvement in UN peacekeeping, securing its status as a global security player. If the US pulls away from critical missions like Congo’s, it could relinquish both influence and reliability in resource-rich areas where rare earth minerals are crucial for future geopolitical dynamics.
Moreover, a retreat at this stage could lead to a more severe humanitarian crisis, flooding Congo’s nine neighboring countries with refugees. History shows that armed groups don’t just vanish; they spread conflicts throughout Central Africa.
Peacekeeping involves more than just having troops present. It’s about existence itself. In remote villages and cities ravaged by war, blue helmets are the only indication that the international community is still watching. When local governments falter, and militias resurge, someone has to step in.
Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget defended cuts as necessary for reducing costs. But what about the cost of failure in Congo? What’s the price tag for abandoning the peace process that the US helped to establish?
The woman I encountered on the border didn’t understand the complexities of budgets or legislative procedures. She simply knew that the blue helmets represented safety.
Peacekeeping isn’t a charitable effort; it’s a strategic initiative.
It offers unmatched legitimacy, shares responsibilities with allies, and ultimately costs significantly less than warfare. At just $1.50 per American each year, it remains one of the most cost-effective ways for the US to invest in global stability.
Ultimately, the President likely takes pride in the peace agreements that the United States has supported. Backing UN peacekeeping is a crucial way to help those efforts thrive.
Peter Yeo is the president of the Better World Campaign.
