The African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) is at a critical crossroads as the United Nations Security Council prepares for closed consultations on Monday, 12 May. At the center of discussions is the mission’s financing model an issue that could determine whether Somalia’s fragile security transition stays on course or falters under budgetary strain.
AUSSOM was launched on 1 January 2025, following the expiration of the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), with a one-year initial mandate authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 2767 (2024). The resolution followed the African Union Peace and Security Council’s endorsement of the mission, aimed at supporting Somalia’s stabilization and peacebuilding efforts amid an ongoing threat posed by Al-Shabaab militants.
But nearly five months into the mission, its financial architecture remains unresolved. The UN Security Council is yet to confirm the application of the funding framework established under Resolution 2719 (2023), which would allow the United Nations to finance up to 75 percent of AUSSOM’s budget through assessed contributions. The remaining 25 percent is to be raised jointly by the African Union and its partners through extra-budgetary support.
This hybrid funding model was meant to be operational from 1 July 2025, but its implementation is contingent upon a final decision by 15 May. The delay has cast a shadow over the mission’s ability to operate effectively, as Somalia and its partners await clarity from the Council.
According to the Secretary-General’s 7 May 2025 report (S/2025/295), the total estimated annual cost of AUSSOM stands at $166.5 million, following adjustments to reduce troop reimbursement rates from the initially proposed $1,000 per soldier to $828. These adjustments were among a series of cost-saving measures that include the exclusion of death and disability compensation from the assessed budget and rationalization of military aviation support.
Despite these reductions, the African Union and the UN still face a $27 million funding gap to meet the required 25 percent of the budget. So far, $10 million has been committed from the AU Peace Fund, with additional pledges of $4.5 million from Japan and the Republic of Korea, according to the report.
The Council’s decision will also consider the findings of the independent strategic review (ISR) of the UN Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), submitted on 1 May (S/2025/268). The review, led by Maman Sidikou and Neil Cole, identified potential savings of $61.6 million within the existing UNSOS budget through efficiency gains and operational realignment. Further consultations between the UN and AU resulted in an additional $63.3 million in proposed savings, bringing total reductions to $124.9 million.
While many Security Council members including the A3 plus group (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Guyana),EU members (France, Denmark, Greece, Slovenia),Panama, China, Russia, and Pakistan have expressed support for the hybrid model, others remain skeptical.
The United States has consistently opposed the use of Resolution 2719 in Somalia’s context. On 2 May 2025, several U.S. senators introduced the AUSSOM Funding Restriction Act, seeking to block U.S. financial contributions to the mission under the resolution. They argue that Somalia is not the appropriate context for this mechanism and have called for alternative funding approaches outside of assessed contributions.
In the face of these disagreements, Gulf states are beginning to fill the void. Qatar, which maintains close ties with Somalia and has historically worked through Turkey to support counterterrorism and military training programs, is considered a potential source of financial support. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates has re-engaged visibly in Somalia’s security sector, offering support to regional forces and investing in maritime security infrastructure after a period of strained political relations with Mogadishu.
The Security Council’s upcoming meeting could prove pivotal. A lack of consensus or further delay in approving the hybrid funding model may compromise the mission’s operations, risking a deterioration in security conditions at a time when Somali forces are assuming greater responsibility amid ongoing threats from Al-Shabaab.
As the clock ticks toward the 15 May deadline, pressure is mounting on Council members to finalize a sustainable financing plan. The outcome will have far-reaching implications not only for Somalia’s stability but also for the credibility of international commitments to African-led peace support operations.
