KAMPALA SUMMIT CONFRONTS UNSOS WITHDRAWAL THREAT AND MISSION SURVIVAL CRISIS
A July 1 letter from the US Mission to the African Union has forced a governance reckoning that months of AU Peace and Security Council directives could not. The United States declared it would not support renewal of AUSSOM’s mandate at the UN Security Council in December 2026 if the mission continues to rely on UNSOS (UN Support Office to AUSSOM) or any UN logistical or operational support. That single communication compelled the rapid convening of technical, ministerial and summit-level meetings in Kampala on 29-30 July, discussions the PSC had requested in December 2025 and reiterated in April 2026, but which had not yet materialised.
The timing is unforgiving. The AU and Somalia now have roughly five months to chart a course before the UNSC mandate renewal decision arrives.
The PSC had tasked the AU Commission to organise these discussions and examine three strategic options along with their operational implications. It took the US letter to accelerate action, a pointed illustration of where institutional accountability currently rests.
The three options under consideration represent fundamentally different futures for the mission. The first maintains the status quo, with the AU and UN continuing to implement a contingency plan while absorbing mandated USD 130 million in budget reductions. The second would transform AUSSOM into a regional cooperation framework, replacing some military and police components with bilateral arrangements between Somalia’s Federal Government and partner nations. The third envisions an organised withdrawal at the end of the current operational plan’s lifespan, supported by detailed exit frameworks and clear timelines.
A July 24 meeting of experts from troop and police contributing countries, plus Somalia, evaluated all three options under the assumption that UNSOS support would end. The conclusion was stark: none appeared feasible without UNSOS. The risks to operational continuity, force sustainment and security stability were deemed too severe. The experts instead proposed attempting to negotiate with the United States to preserve UNSOS support through the 2024-2029 transition period.
Meanwhile, Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces, addressing the Kampala gathering, called for “African-led alternative arrangements that would sustain the mission beyond 2026,” signalling recognition that the US position may not shift. A recent policy analysis suggests a hybrid mechanism involving minimal logistical support funded through non-UN sources, including AU contributions, anchored on a negotiated transition compact, could offer a middle path.
These represent best-case scenarios, each contingent on either reversing the US decision or establishing a viable alternative within an extremely compressed timeframe. The AU and contributing nations cannot rely solely on optimistic planning. As documented in analysis available at https://amaniafrica-et.org/why-the-african-union-and-somalia-need-to-plan-for-the-worst-case-scenario-of-aussoms-withdrawal/, the institutions involved must prepare for scenarios where neither reversal nor alternatives materialise.
The worst-case scenario involves AUSSOM withdrawal by December 2026 without continued UNSOS support or a functioning replacement arrangement. The risks identified during the July 24 expert meeting underscore why this outcome demands contingency planning now, not after negotiations fail. An abrupt withdrawal could create security gaps, undermine Somali force capacity and jeopardise the stability gains the mission has helped achieve.
Planning for that scenario requires designing and implementing risk mitigation measures to ensure the most orderly withdrawal possible, while simultaneously establishing alternative security arrangements for Somalia. Such alternatives could combine bilateral support from partner nations with a regional joint force modelled on existing multilateral structures like the Multinational Joint Task Force in the Lake Chad Basin, adapted to the Somali context.
The AU, troop and police contributing countries, and Somalia face a clear governance imperative: they cannot proceed without contingency planning for the worst case, even as they pursue negotiations for better outcomes. The Kampala summit must balance advocacy for UNSOS continuation with institutional preparation for mission transition or withdrawal. AU credibility and regional stability both depend on whether the decisions taken in Kampala over these two days prove adequate to the timeline they are now locked into.