Information integrity refers to an information ecosystem in which freedom of expression is fully enjoyed and information that is accurate, reliable, free from discrimination and hate is available to all in an open, inclusive, safe and security information environment.
The rise of digital media has enabled an unprecedented production and amplification of false, misleading and/or inaccurate information, distorting facts and shaping perceptions in conflict-affected countries. Peacekeeping missions are increasingly targeted by actors who exploit digital platforms to spread falsehoods about their role and actions in pursuit of peace.
Addressing the challenge of harmful information is imperative for trust building, dialogue, understanding and sustainable peace.
How does harmful information affect peacekeeping missions?
Safety and Security
False or misleading narratives have led to violence, resulting in the loss of peacekeepers’ lives and the destruction of UN assets. Attacks on individual peacekeepers can also lead to physical and psychological harm and erode morale.
Mandate implementation
Disinformation campaigns undermine public trust in UN peacekeeping operations, weakening one of their key strengths: legitimacy. This legitimacy stems from both the UN Security Council mandate and the mission’s diverse, international composition. When trust is eroded, peacekeepers struggle to carry out essential tasks, such as:
- Political Processes: Harmful narratives can undermine political negotiations and the implementation of peace agreements by attacking participants in the political process, mediators or the peace process/agreement themselves.
- Protection of civilians: Harmful information, particularly hate speech, poses risks to civilians in peacekeeping host countries, including ethnic, religious and other minority groups, human rights defenders or journalists and media workers. These targeted attacks increase the complexity of peacekeepers’ efforts to ensure their protection.
- Ceasefire monitoring: Peacekeeping operations may be deployed to observe or monitor ceasefire agreements and create political space for the parties to negotiate a lasting peace. However, harmful information can target the credibility and impartiality of the UN, thus eroding trust between the parties and peacekeepers, and interfering with the mission’s freedom of movement.
- Women, Peace and Security: In conflict-affected environments, women and girls are often reliant on word-of-mouth information, making them particularly vulnerable to misinformation, disinformation or hate speech (MDH). Harmful narratives may perpetuate biases, prejudices and systemic barriers to gender equality, which can manifest as technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV). Such violence not only threatens individual safety but also undermines the meaningful participation of women and girls in political and peace processes.
Examples of harmful information and their impactDemocratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): In July 2022, increased negative sentiment about MONUSCO peacekeepers coincided with violent protests. These attacks resulted in the death of civilians and peacekeepers and severely disrupted mission operations—around 400 UN vehicles were immobilized due to heightened security risks. Lebanon: In December 2022, a disinformation campaign preceded a violent attack in Aqibiyah, southern Lebanon. The attack led to the death of one UNIFIL peacekeeper and left three others injured. The incidents in DRC and Lebanon were reported in the 2023 Secretary General Report on Peacekeeping Operations. Mali: During the 2023 drawdown of MINUSMA, a surge in false and misleading narratives fueled hostility toward peacekeepers, raising significant concerns about the safety and security of mission personnel. Examples of disinformation used against the mission can be found here. |
Isn’t there fair criticism of peacekeeping?
Yes, it is essential to acknowledge that peacekeeping missions are not infallible and must be held accountable when they fall short. In fact, peacekeeping missions uphold human rights and freedoms, including freedom of opinion and expression.
Over more than seven decades, peacekeeping has experienced successes and failures. Studies, such as the Brahimi report or the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO), have examined peacekeeping shortcomings, leading to important reforms and initiatives like Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) and its implementation plan A4P+.
Legitimate criticism is crucial for maintaining accountability and ensuring continuous improvement of peacekeeping efforts. For example, peacekeeping missions continue to strive to strengthen conduct, particularly related to the prevention of sexual abuse and exploitation (SEA).
Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been a rise in the deliberate spread of false, misleading or inaccurate allegations against peacekeeping operations and personnel, with an intent to do harm. These narratives interfere with the public’s right to seek, receive and impart information to form their own opinion of the UN’s work. The intentional dissemination of false or misleading stories about peacekeeping is not fair, legitimate or genuine criticism.
How do peacekeepers perceive the challenge?In 2024, an internal survey of peacekeeping personnel revealed that harmful information remains a significant threat to peacekeeping operations. Nearly all missions perceived the amount of misinformation or disinformation increasing in their mission areas. When asked about the spread of misinformation and disinformation, 44% of personnel, surveyed from the four largest missions, observed occurrences of misinformation or disinformation increasing in prevalence. |
What is UN Peacekeeping doing to address this issue?
The Department of Peace Operations (DPO), through an Information Integrity Unit created in 2023, is taking a multifaceted approach to help missions anticipate and mitigate harmful information, while strengthening information integrity.
Policy and guidance: Policy and guidance is being developed to promote a shared and common approach to managing harmful information. The strategy draws from recognized best practices and lessons, and integrates the efforts of military, police and civilian components to address misinformation, disinformation and hate speech-related challenges.
Monitoring and analysis: DPO monitors and analyses narratives related to specific missions which involves identifying emerging harmful narratives; tactics, techniques and procedures used; and analysis of trends and patterns.
Training: Capacity-building on open-source investigations and narrative analysis prepare peacekeepers to anticipate high-risk moments and implement best practices to mitigate risks.
Technology and Tools: Digital tools to monitor and analyse the information environment enable early warning, detection of harmful narratives and investigation of specific incidents.
Responses: A variety of responses are being promoted to address misinformation, disinformation and hate speech:
- Strategic communications: Raising awareness and building support among key audiences, explaining the mission’s role, responsibilities and impact.
- Political outreach and commitments: Highlighting the harms created and requesting actions to signal or stop harmful information.
- Community engagement: Understanding the fears, grievances, priorities and perceptions of peacekeeping interlocutors and using credible local voices to build resilience against misinformation and disinformation.
- Protection of journalists, human rights defenders and media workers: Supporting national authorities to protect the safety of journalists and media workers.
- Public reporting: Shedding light on misinformation, disinformation and hate speech by documenting, informing and debunking false narratives without amplifying the harms.
- Accountability for incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence: Where instances of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech reach the threshold of incitement under the Rabat Plan of Action, missions should advocate for impartial, prompt, and thorough investigations.
- Reporting to technology platforms: Reporting harmful content that violates technology platforms’ “community standards”.
- Supporting long-term societal resilience: Supporting media capacity-building and media and data literacy for all ages as well as strengthening public institutions to promote the creation of accurate information.