Urgent Call to Action: The Future of Peacekeeping in Somalia

Mogadishu (AX) — Just recently, the United Nations Security Council faced a significant setback by not authorizing a crucial funding framework for the African Union’s (AU) ambitious peace mission in Somalia. This oversight means that while the clock continues to tick, hope for a streamlined transition remains perilously uncertain.

AUSSOM: A New Chapter or an Unwritten Story?

Enter the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), set to replace its predecessor, the AU Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), on July 1. This new mission was envisioned as a beacon of hope, designed to bolster Somalia’s stabilization efforts while tackling long-standing issues of sustainability and accountability in AU-led missions. Yet, as the UN approached its self-imposed May 15 deadline for approving a funding framework under Resolution 2767, disappointment loomed large, raising alarms about AUSSOM’s viability before it even had a chance to take flight.

The funding structure established by Security Council Resolution 2719 proposed a hybrid model, allowing the UN to contribute up to 75% of eligible AU-led operations. The remaining 25% was expected to be shared among the AU and other donor nations. However, the failure to adopt the necessary follow-up resolution leaves essential backing in limbo. As the political climate shifts, one might wonder: What does this failure signal about international collaboration and commitment to peace?

Concerns from the Ground: Voices from the Region

The ripple effects of this delay have sent shockwaves through African troop-contributing countries. Security officials from the region are understandably anxious, questioning whether AUSSOM can effectively carry out its mission with this precarious funding gap. “Every day we wait for solutions is another day of uncertainty,” one concerned logistics officer mentioned during a recent security briefing. His words echo the sentiments of many who are reliant on international support for stability.

In a concerted effort to streamline costs, the AU and the UN reduced AUSSOM’s anticipated annual budget from $190.2 million to $166.5 million. However, even with these economies, the mission still faces a substantial financial shortfall. A joint review, spearheaded by independent experts and overseen by the UN Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), found potential savings amounting to $124.9 million through strategic adjustments. These included freezing troop stipends at $828 a month and eliminating death and disability insurance payments. All prudent steps, yet the question remains—are they sufficient to close the funding gap?

As of now, only an additional $14.5 million in external funds has been secured—$10 million from the AU Peace Fund and $4.5 million from Japan and South Korea. A chasm of $27 million still exists in the AU’s commitment to their share of financing. The AU, already owing $96 million in back payments to member states, is under mounting pressure to proactively seek further support.

The Divide of Opinion: A Global Perspective

In this complex puzzle, perspectives remain divided. Most Council members, including the A3+ group (comprising Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana), the European Union, Panama, and South Korea have voiced their support for activating the Resolution 2719 framework. Even China, Russia, and Pakistan have jumped on board, highlighting the crucial need for equitable cost-sharing and constant international endorsement of African-led initiatives. Yet, the United States still staunchly opposes the initiative. Citing concerns around financial transparency and adherence to human rights, U.S. lawmakers introduced the AUSSOM Funding Restriction Act of 2025, which could obstruct further U.S. contributions while mandating Washington to block related Security Council actions.

In the grand tapestry of diplomacy, the recent visit of a senior AU delegation to Washington serves as a compelling anecdote. In a last-ditch effort to garner U.S. support, they sought to bridge divides but returned home empty-handed. This inability to secure backing raises troubling questions: Will such roadblocks continue to stifle collaborative peacekeeping efforts in the region?

Exploring Alternatives: A Multi-Faceted Approach

In light of the current deadlock, stakeholders are casting their nets wider in search of solutions. The European Union has proposed a €60 million support package aimed at both AUSSOM and bilateral security partnerships, and plans for a potential pledging conference in Doha or London are underway, designed to attract contributions from Gulf and Asian partners. Such efforts could be instrumental, yet it is important to ask: How long can this patchwork approach hold until a more permanent solution materializes?

Despite the financial uncertainty that looms overhead, AU officials are urging troop-contributing countries to remain steadfast in their commitment to AUSSOM. However, analysts caution that persistent funding gaps could lead to either a scaling back or postponement of operations—an unsettling prospect as Somali forces continue their fight against the entrenched Al-Shabaab insurgency. With the region’s stability hanging in the balance, the absence of a robust funding plan raises significant concerns about the international community’s dedication to Somalia’s future.

The inaction of the Security Council has reignited apprehension about global powers’ commitment to stabilizing Somalia and fortifying African-led peace operations. The clock is ticking. As we approach July, the fate of AUSSOM dangles precariously on the helix of resolved funding and international solidarity.

In this critical juncture, one must reflect: How can we, as global citizens, rally around a shared vision for peace that transcends borders and politics? The answer to that question may very well shape the trajectory of peacekeeping efforts for generations to come.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.