The United States has rejected a United Nations proposal to help finance the African Union’s new peacekeeping mission in Somalia.
- The U.S. has declined to support a UN proposal to finance the African Union’s new peacekeeping mission in Somalia.
- The rejection impacts the transition from the African Union’s current mission ATMIS to the restructured AUSSOM initiative.
- Persistent unrest due to Al-Shabaab insurgents complicates stability and peace efforts in Somalia.
The Trump-led administration has rejected an African Union appeal to fund its new Somalia peace mission, citing operational concerns and poor burden-sharing.
A senior AU delegation visited Washington recently in a final push to secure backing for AUSSOM, which is set to replace ATMIS (African Union Transition Mission in Somalia) in July.
ATMIS is an AU-authorized peacekeeping mission that replaced the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and aims to support the Somali Security Forces in combating al-Shabaab and securing the country.
The U.S. decision has dealt a major blow to international efforts aimed at stabilizing the country as it transitions from ATMIS to the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission (AUSSOM).
Despite nearly two decades of military presence by the African Union in Somalia, the Islamist insurgent group Al-Shabaab remains deeply entrenched and increasingly emboldened.
While initial AU deployments helped reclaim key areas from militant control, recent offensives by Al-Shabaab have reversed many of those gains.
AU’s financial burden
ATMIS, the outgoing African Union mission, faces a severe financial crisis, with nearly $100 million in unpaid salaries and mounting debts, undermining peacekeeper morale and raising concerns about a potential security vacuum in Somalia.
According to a report by the Security Council Report, the US has expressed consistent opposition to the use of the 2719 framework for Somalia.
The framework was adopted in December 2023 and marks a significant development in the financing of African Union (AU)-led peace support operations (PSOs), allowing, for the first time, the use of UN-assessed contributions to fund such missions on a case-by-case basis
“The US has maintained that Somalia is not an appropriate context for the application of the 2719 framework and has opposed the hybrid implementation model, arguing that it does not reflect the spirit or intent of resolution 2719. The US has suggested exploring alternative financing options that extend beyond the traditional donor base.” the report noted
To address this, the UN and AU have agreed to cut $124.9 million from the AUSSOM budget by reducing peacekeeper pay, removing insurance costs, and cutting back on flights and equipment.
As a result, the revised AUSSOM budget is now $166.5 million, down from the projected $190.2 million.
They also hope to fund mine-clearing work through donations instead of the main budget. The UN says these cuts were tough decisions but necessary to keep the mission going without asking member countries to pay more.
Several Security Council members, including EU countries, have stressed the need for diversified funding and cost-sharing for Somalia’s peace mission, while China has urged traditional donors to maintain strong financial support.
In contrast, the US has consistently opposed using the 2719 framework for Somalia.
On 2 May, US senators introduced the “AUSSOM Funding Restriction Act of 2025,” aiming to block US contributions to AUSSOM under resolution 2719. The US argues that Somalia is unsuitable for the hybrid model and calls for exploring alternative funding options outside traditional donors
The ongoing crisis in Somalia has led to widespread suffering, with millions facing food insecurity and displacement due to conflict between Somali forces and Al-Shabaab. Political instability and clan divisions have further weakened the government’s authority.
While Somalia plans to hold direct elections in 2025, the crisis may disrupt the process. Displacement and Al-Shabaab’s control over regions could limit voting, while political tensions between federal states may undermine the elections’ credibility, affecting turnout and legitimacy.
