Somalia funding deadline was missed by the United Nations Security Council, causing a critical funding crisis for the African Union’s support and stabilization mission in Somalia. This delay comes amid growing tension between the United States and its European allies over how the mission should be financed, raising serious concerns about Somalia’s worsening security situation.
The African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), which succeeded the African Union Peacekeeping Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), was already under pressure to exit Somalia by December 2024. However, with al-Shabaab escalating its attacks and Somali security forces struggling to contain the insurgency, the timeline has now been extended to December 2029. The international community, led by the US and European Union, is now locked in a debate over who should shoulder the cost of this prolonged commitment.
The United States has accused its European allies of trying to shift more of the financial responsibility onto American taxpayers. US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch criticized the proposed hybrid funding model, calling it a plan to “fund a perpetually broken system.” The model would have the United Nations cover 75% of the 21.5 billion shillings needed for the mission’s next fiscal year through assessed contributions. This plan, however, was blocked by the Biden administration in December 2024.
Ambassador Dorothy Shea, the acting US representative to the UN, explained that the Council’s Resolution 2719 was intended to apply only to troop reimbursements, not full operational costs. Under the proposed arrangement, UN-assessed contributions would cover more than 90% of the mission’s expenses—a burden the US refuses to accept.
Historically, the United States has covered 25% of the annual UN stabilization support budget in Somalia, amounting to 258 billion shillings over the past 18 years. Meanwhile, the European Union has been the single largest contributor to AMISOM and ATMIS since 2007, having paid 623 billion shillings to fund troops’ stipends—about 100,000 shillings per soldier each month.
However, ATMIS is now in debt to troop-contributing countries by over 12 billion shillings, and donor fatigue is becoming evident. Risch and two fellow Republican senators have even drafted a 2025 funding restriction act aimed at capping future US spending on the mission unless a more balanced funding model is established.
As diplomatic negotiations stall, the security situation in Somalia deteriorates. Al-Shabaab has ramped up its attacks in recent months. On February 20 and 27, the group launched offensives in Middle Shabelle. On March 11, militants targeted a hotel in central Somalia, killing elders and military officers. A week later, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s motorcade was hit by a bomb in Mogadishu. The following day, a mortar attack struck the Halane compound—home to UN and AU officials and several embassies. Then, on March 20, two coordinated attacks in Lower Shabelle killed a senior military official.
In response to these growing threats, troop-contributing countries like Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Egypt have proposed restoring the 8,000 AU troops withdrawn since 2017 and boosting air and intelligence assets, which would require an estimated two billion shillings monthly.
Despite the funding gap, a pledging conference is scheduled for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as the US pushes for alternative funding solutions. Some support has already emerged. Japan and South Korea have shown interest, and the African Union Peace Fund is expected to contribute. However, the gap remains significant compared to what the US and EU have already committed over the years.
Dr. Fatma Ahmed Ali, an international relations expert, argues that while US hesitation is valid, alternative contributions are being explored. “The Americans may not have voted, but that doesn’t mean they’ll walk away. They may instead fund the mission bilaterally,” she said. She emphasized the need for African countries to recognize this moment as a wake-up call to invest more heavily in their own peacekeeping missions.
Dr. Hassan Khannen, Director of the Horn Institute, also warned that abandoning Somalia now would be a strategic mistake. He cited Afghanistan as an example of the long-term consequences of failing states. “There’s already donor fatigue in both the US and EU. But letting Somalia fail could have global implications,” he said.
He also highlighted the coordination challenges arising from the shift toward more bilateral engagements in the new mission. Without a unified force structure, troop deployments and equipment usage could become disorganized, hampering efforts to achieve strategic goals.
While some Middle Eastern nations have pledged support, and Japan and Korea are stepping in with funds, the overall sustainability of the mission remains in question. African governments, analysts suggest, must step up and contribute not just manpower but also resources to ensure lasting peace in Somalia.
The deadlock at the UN Security Council is more than just a funding issue. It is a test of global commitment to stabilizing fragile states and a reminder that peace in Somalia has broader regional and international implications. For neighbors like Kenya and Uganda, whose security is directly tied to developments in Somalia, the current impasse is especially concerning. Al-Shabaab is already taking advantage of the funding gaps and mission confusion, further threatening stability in the Horn of Africa.
As the UN faces a six-week countdown to finalize funding before the end of the current financial year, the world is watching. Whether new funding mechanisms can be agreed upon in time—and whether they will be enough—remains to be seen.
