Addis Ababa (Somalia Today) — African Union member states are openly questioning how long the continent can sustain its costly peace mission in Somalia, as shrinking international funding raises the prospect of an earlier-than-planned troop withdrawal.
Cameroon and Gabon told an emergency meeting of military advisers to the AU Peace and Security Council that “every peace support operation eventually reaches a conclusion,” according to minutes of the talks.
The two countries urged Somalia to accelerate efforts to build security institutions capable of operating without foreign troops, marking a significant shift in a debate previously focused on securing more international money for the mission.
Their warnings reflect growing frustration among African governments over the financial and political burden of maintaining an open-ended deployment in Somalia.
The concerns intensified after Washington informed the African Union that it would no longer support the United Nations logistics operation underpinning the mission beyond December 31, 2026.
“The latest US decision would end the remaining UNSOS logistical support after 31 December 2026, leaving AUSSOM under serious logistical constraints,” the meeting minutes said.
The African Union warned that the decision would create “serious operational challenges if the mission continues without a replacement mechanism”.
Reuters reported that Washington would not oppose another mandate for the AU mission but would reject any extension that included UN logistical or operational support.
The African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia, known as AUSSOM, replaced the previous AU transition mission on January 1, 2025.
The UN Security Council authorised the new mission to support Somali forces in degrading Al-Shabaab and Islamic State-linked militants and transferring security responsibilities to national institutions.
Logistical lifeline
AUSSOM depends heavily on the United Nations Support Office in Somalia, or UNSOS, for food, fuel, aviation, medical evacuation, strategic transport and equipment support.
Without that logistical network, AU officials fear troops would struggle to maintain bases, reinforce vulnerable towns or evacuate casualties from battlefields across southern and central Somalia.
For nearly two decades, international partners have funded most of the AU’s security operations in the country.
The European Union, the largest direct donor to successive AU missions in Somalia, has provided almost €2.8 billion since 2007 after approving another €75 million in April.
The United States has provided roughly $1.6 billion in bilateral assistance to troop-contributing countries and another $2 billion through UNSOS and its predecessor. Britain and other international partners have also offered substantial support.
But those funding streams have come under growing pressure as donors turn their attention to other global crises and demand greater Somali responsibility for national security.
For the 2025-26 financial year, AUSSOM required about $190 million for troop reimbursements alone. The AU, however, secured only around $120 million in confirmed pledges.
Washington’s decision has also cast doubt over a UN logistics package worth about $500 million, which provides the operational backbone of the mission.
Search for an exit
Military advisers examined three possible paths: a phased withdrawal of AU troops, continued deployment with bilateral donors replacing UNSOS, or a smaller regional force financed through bilateral or hybrid arrangements.
The latter two options attracted little enthusiasm because they would still require African troop contributors to maintain an expensive operation without guaranteed external funding.
That has left a managed withdrawal — once regarded as the least desirable outcome — as the scenario many member states increasingly view as the most realistic.
Uganda, the mission’s largest troop contributor, has maintained forces in Somalia since the first AU deployment in 2007.
But officials in Kampala have also started demanding a clearer endgame, warning that Uganda “can’t keep in Somalia forever”.
Morocco said it would announce its position after consulting national authorities, while Ethiopia pledged to continue supporting Somalia.
The debate suggests AU members are no longer asking only whether the mission should continue, but how and when it should end.
Security vacuum fears
Any rapid withdrawal would carry serious risks.
Al-Shabaab still controls or influences large rural areas and regularly attacks Somali forces, AU positions and government targets in Mogadishu.
Somalia’s army has expanded after years of international training, but analysts say it remains overstretched and lacks the logistical capacity to operate independently across the country.
“Without immediate alternative international funding, AUSSOM faces imminent operational collapse heading into 2027,” Mohamed Daud Ismail, a senior research assistant with conflict-monitoring group ACLED, said in an analysis.
The loss of UN logistical support could leave strategic towns and major supply routes more exposed, weaken medical and casualty evacuation capabilities and create new opportunities for Al-Shabaab to exploit security gaps.
Even a smaller AU force would require hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain its logistics, a cost many member states consider far beyond the organisation’s present capacity.
The dispute has changed the tone of international discussions over Somalia.
Previous debates centred on extending support for the country’s gradual security transition. The focus has now shifted towards how the AU can withdraw responsibly without creating a vacuum that Al-Shabaab could fill.
For Somalia’s government, the message from African capitals is becoming increasingly clear: foreign forces and international donors may remain essential for now, but their support cannot continue indefinitely.
