Crisis Group expert Daniel Forti on the AU Somalia mission’s financial woes and prospects for future multilateral assistance
17 May 2025
By Daniel Forti
Yesterday the UN Security Council missed a self-imposed deadline to offer the AU Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) a financial lifeline from the UN budget. In 2023, the Council passed Resolution 2719, a framework for the use of UN funds to cover up to 75 per cent of the costs of AU-mandated missions, a long-time priority for African states. Last December, the Security Council agreed that this mechanism could be used to cover the bulk of AUSSOM’s costs, but only if it passed another resolution authorising the arrangement by 15 May. This April, the U.S. indicated that it would not support the measure, and other Council members avoided pressing the issue. The future of AUSSOM, which began operations at the beginning of 2025, is now in doubt.
Funding shortfalls have destabilised AUSSOM’s operations and aggravated its troop contributors, continuing dynamics that hamstrung its predecessor missions AMISOM and ATMIS. The AU can only cover a small percentage of AUSSOM’s $166 million annual budget, including through $10 million from the AU Peace Fund. It already owes $96 million to AU member states that previously deployed forces in Somalia. European countries that underwrote previous AU deployments are no longer willing to foot the entire bill. Although Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Middle Eastern countries have shown interest in the new mission, none appear willing to fill such a large financial gap.
AU, UN and European officials all point to Resolution 2719 as the answer. But in both the Biden and Trump administrations, the U.S. has been wary of offering UN funding, with some officials concerned about the mission falling short of international human rights and financial accountability standards, and others simply seeing it as a poor investment. Key members of Congress are also sceptical. The Biden Administration did not rule out UN funding last December – partly to avoid creating ill will in its last weeks in office – but left it to Trump’s team to make a final decision ahead of yesterday’s deadline. Much of the current opposition in Washington is driven by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose chair recently drafted legislation that would bar the U.S. government from supporting the application of Resolution 2719 to Somalia.
With the U.S. unlikely to reverse course, it is time to focus on alternative funding solutions. Neither the AU nor its partners have articulated detailed plans beyond using the 2719 mechanism. The EU has floated EUR 60 million in new funding, but it would be split between AUSSOM and bilateral security cooperation. AU officials, who have encouraged the five African troop contributing countries to stay in Somalia regardless of new funding, are pushing for a pledging conference in Doha or London to bolster the mission’s coffers. Should these efforts succeed, AUSSOM may get a brief financial reprieve.
But absent a more permanent funding solution, the AU may have to curtail AUSSOM’s operations well before Somalia is ready. Countries may regret the long-term costs of their decision, even if it saves them money today.
