African Union mission in Somalia teeters as $180 million shortfall threatens gains against al‑Shabab
MOGADISHU — The African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) is confronting a funding cliff that could unravel years of hard-won progress against the Islamist insurgency, AU officials warned at the United Nations General Assembly. With about 11,000 troops from Kenya, Burundi, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Uganda deployed across Somali towns and desert tracks, the mission now faces an estimated $180 million gap that risks grounding logistics, cutting stipends and shrinking mobility — the very elements that keep front‑line units effective.
- Advertisement -
“The AU has already doubled its contribution to the Peace Fund to $20 million, demonstrating Africa’s resolve. Yet without urgent, predictable and sustainable financing, hard‑won achievements risk being undone,” Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, chairperson of AUSSOM, told a high‑level financing session in New York. His blunt assessment — at a forum where national leaders and diplomats are watching the future of Somalia’s fragile transition — underscored a larger dilemma: regional responsibility without reliable resources can be hollow.
From ATMIS to AUSSOM — a fragile handover
The funding crisis comes months after the transition from the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) to AUSSOM, a reconfiguration meant to move Somali security toward national ownership while retaining regional support. The AU describes the new posture as a bridge from dependency to sovereignty. Yet the bridge requires fuel, trucks, patrol boats and paid soldiers — not just rhetoric.
Kenya, which currently contributes roughly 3,000 troops, and other troop‑contributing countries have warned that financial uncertainty undermines operational readiness and morale. “Such a framework must be comprehensive, covering troop stipends, logistics, mobility, and broader operational requirements,” Musalia Mudavadi, Kenya’s prime cabinet secretary, said at the UN gathering. “Financial uncertainty emboldens extremist groups and threatens to reverse the hard‑won gains achieved through years of sacrifice and solidarity.”
What the shortfall means on the ground
At its most basic, the $180 million gap translates into fewer fuel convoys, reduced medical evacuations, delayed replacements for worn vehicles and interruptions to monthly stipends paid to allied Somali forces — the back office of counterinsurgency. When patrols slow and checkpoints thin, insurgents seize the tactical advantage; when pay stops, loyalties fray. For communities in central and southern Somalia, which have endured cycles of violence, such slippage risks a return to the school closings, market curfews and displacement that marked earlier chapters of the conflict.
AUSSOM leadership insists the mission is not open‑ended. “With adequate support, it can close the chapter of dependency and usher in a new era of sovereignty, stability and prosperity,” Youssouf said — an appeal calibrated to donors who have grown weary of open‑ended commitments. Yet donor fatigue is real. Western capitals juggling inflation, energy crises and other geopolitical commitments have signaled impatience. At the session, U.S. President Donald Trump also warned of the possibility of Washington reducing its support, citing concerns about partner contributions and allegations of misappropriation — language that sharpens tensions between principle and pragmatism.
Politics, trust and the problem of predictability
Donor politics meet African agency
The AU’s decision to double its Peace Fund contribution to $20 million sent a political signal: African governments are putting money where their mouth is. But in practical terms, that amount is a fraction of the gap. The shortfall highlights the persistent mismatch between regional leadership ambitions and the financial architecture needed to sustain them.
Predictable financing matters as much as the size of the cheque. Military operations depend on multi‑year planning — contracts for fuel, repairs, food and allowances are not easily adjusted month to month. Without multi‑year pledges, politics in distant capitals can abruptly cut support, with local consequences measured in lost lives and towns exposed.
Broader trends: regionalization of security and donor retrenchment
Somalia’s predicament sits within a larger global pattern. Over the last decade, Western powers have increasingly encouraged regional solutions for local conflicts while at the same time retrenching from long‑term burdens. In Africa, this has produced an uneasy hybrid: high expectations for African‑led missions but insufficient, short‑term funding and conditionalities that can undermine local legitimacy.
At the same time, private military contractors and alternative partners have stepped into the void in other theatres, raising questions about the kind of security architecture nations want. Will African states prefer transparent, multilateral support — with oversight and accountability — or faster, less conditional alternatives? The answer will shape the continent’s strategic trajectory.
Choices ahead and the human cost
Somalia’s AUSSOM faces a December 2025 mandate expiry that offers a deadline and a pressure point. Yet looming dates are no substitute for sustained finance. The AU and troop contributors are urging the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and other partners to step up with predictable commitments that cover stipends, logistics and broader operational needs. Egypt’s pledged deployment in the coming weeks signals continued regional engagement, but one more contingent does not close a systemic funding hole.
For Somalis who have endured two decades of instability, the calculus is simple and immediate: will the patrols keep passing through the market on Mogadishu’s outskirts, will schools remain open in Hawadle districts, will relief convoys reach drought‑hit communities without being diverted by insecurity? These are not abstract policy debates; they are decisions that determine whether people sleep safely at night.
As capitals haggle over ledgers and conditions, the wider community of donors and regional partners must reckon with a tough question: is the alternative to predictable support a return to the era when extremist groups carved out safe havens, or will a concerted, multiyear investment finally allow Somalia to step toward a sustainable, Somali‑led security architecture?
Those choices will define not just Somalia’s future but the credibility of regional security cooperation across Africa. Will the world answer the AU’s appeal, or will another fragile transition become a cautionary tale of good intentions without the finances to match?
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
