Promoting Information Integrity and Tackling Harmful Information in Peacekeeping Settings

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.

What is harmful information?

There are no internationally agreed upon definitions for the different types of harmful information. In peacekeeping contexts, we rely on UN working definitions of the major categories of harmful information:

• Misinformation is inaccurate information that is unintentionally shared in good faith by those unaware that they are passing on falsehoods.
• Disinformation is the spread of inaccurate information intended to deceive and shared in order to do serious harm.
• Hate speech is any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or identity factor.

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.

How does harmful information affect peacekeeping missions? 

Harmful information affects peacekeeping operations in two critical ways: it impacts the safety and security of peacekeepers and hinders the effective implementation of the mission’s mandate.

Safety and Security

False or misleading narratives about peacekeeping missions have endangered peacekeepers. In some cases, these narratives have led to violence, resulting in the loss of peacekeepers’ lives and the destruction of UN assets. Attacks on individual peacekeepers, including defamatory language against peacekeepers, can 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 protecting civilians, supporting political agreements, facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties, or monitoring ceasefires.  

• 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 or agreement themselves. Participants in a political process, particularly women, may be subject to hate speech. By spreading fear, hatred, and confusion, misleading, inaccurate or false information can derail negotiations, fuel conflict, and hinder progress towards peace and stability. Harmful narratives may discredit mediators by spreading false, misleading or inaccurate information about peace negotiations, further complicating the path to sustainable peace.
• 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 groups face targeted attacks both online and offline, increasing the complexity of peacekeepers’ efforts to ensure their safety and 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: Harmful information can reinforce and amplify patriarchal structures and harmful gender norms, silencing women and gender-diverse voices. 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. These harmful narratives may perpetuate biases, prejudices, and systemic barriers to gender equality, which can manifest as technology-facilitated gender-based violence. Such violence not only threatens individual safety but also undermined the meaningful participation of women and girls in political and peace processes.

But 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. 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 (A4Pv) 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 and ideas of all kinds in order 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 mis- or disinformation increasing in their mission areas. When asked about the impact on their safety and security, 42% of respondents from the largest missions said that mis- and disinformation was having a “critical” or “severe” effect. While still concerning, this marks an improvement compared to the previous year, when 74%  expressed the same level of concern.  mdmh_graph.png

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 monitor, analyze, respond to, and evaluate misinformation, disinformation and hate speech-related challenges.

Monitoring and analysis: Through its Information Integrity Unit, DPO monitors and analyses narratives related to specific missions, in collaboration with those missions. This involves identifying emerging harmful narratives; tactics, techniques and procedures used; and analysis of trends and patterns.

Training: Awareness-raising and capacity-building efforts focus on equipping personnel with skills in open-source investigations and narrative analysis. These efforts prepare peacekeepers to anticipate high-risk moments and implement best practices to mitigate risks.

Technology and Tools: Missions are equipped with digital tools to monitor and analyze the information environment within the parameters mandated by the Security Council. These tools enable early warning, detection of harmful narratives, and investigation of specific incidents, enhancing operational responses.

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. A proactive communications approach includes communications across a range of platforms based on audience analysis, including traditional media, in-person outreach, radio and digital media.
• Political outreach and commitments: Highlighting the harms created and request actions to signal or to stop harmful information.
• Community engagement: Strengthening trust and acceptance of the United Nations’ presence; to understand the fears, grievances, priorities and perceptions of peacekeeping interlocutors; and to use credible local voices to build resilience against misinformation and disinformation.
• Protection of journalists, human rights defenders and media workers: National authorities should be supported in fulfilling their international human rights obligations on the safety of journalists and media workers (and others exercising their freedom of expression in the public interest).
• 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 or incitement to genocide, missions should advocate for impartial, prompt and thorough investigations, and actions to bring perpetrators to justice.
• Reporting to technology platforms: Harmful content that violates social media and other technology platforms’ “community standards” should be reported as a matter of course.
• Supporting long-term societal resilience: Misinformation, disinformation and hate speech are less likely to thrive in a strong civic space. Actions in support of information integrity include media capacity-building, media and data literacy for children and adults, strengthening the capacity of public institutions to promote the creation of accurate information and encouraging a culture of truth and accountability through the empowerment of fact-checking organizations.