Washington Proposes One-Year UNSOS Drawdown, Rejects 18-24 Month Extension Sought by Somalia and AU

ADDIS ABABA — The United States has signalled a more measured approach to the planned closure of the UN Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), offering a 12-month drawdown before shutdown, after the current authorisation for the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) expires on December 31, 2026, according to a US non-paper.

The US Mission to the African Union, in a diplomatic note signed in Addis Ababa on September 10, 2026, informed the African Union Commission that although the US will not support the continuation of UNSOS beyond the current authorisation, it does not oppose allowing the mission appropriate time for drawdown and liquidation. The note proposes a 12-month drawdown period followed immediately by liquidation.

This position represents a shift from Washington’s earlier stance. In a July 1 diplomatic note, the US had informed the AU that it would not support UNSOS beyond the end of 2026 and would oppose any extension of AUSSOM that included UN logistical or operational support. The new proposal introduces a transition period that could buy critical time for the UN, AU troop-contributing countries, and the Federal Government of Somalia.

Somalia and AU Sought Longer Timeline

The US proposal falls short of what Somalia, the African Union, and troop-contributing countries had sought. At the second extraordinary summit of troop-contributing countries in Kampala on July 31, 2026, representatives from Uganda, Kenya, Burundi, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Djibouti appealed for the UN Security Council’s continued support for 18 to 24 months to enable the implementation of agreed milestones, strengthen Somali security institutions, and facilitate the orderly transfer of security responsibilities.

Washington has explicitly rejected the 18-to-24-month extensions discussed in Kampala, leaving the UK, as penholder on Somalia at the Security Council, with a difficult balancing act of reconciling the US demand for a defined exit with pressure from Somalia and the AU for a longer transition.

Financial and Logistical Stakes

The financial dimension makes the dispute more consequential. The UN General Assembly has already approved an appropriation of $481 million for UNSOS for the current financial year, and the US provides approximately 26 percent of that budget through assessed contributions. A 12-month drawdown could give UNSOS significantly more time to execute its approved budget while winding down operations, rather than forcing an accelerated liquidation immediately after December 31, 2026.

UNSOS has already been preparing for a rapid wind-down following the earlier US position, including putting assets up for auction and reducing its workforce. The mission has issued a public tender seeking qualified auctioneers to sell a wide range of UN-owned equipment and vehicles, including vehicles, generators, medical and laboratory equipment, prefabricated accommodation materials, and heavy construction machinery.

AUSSOM, which fields nearly 12,000 personnel, relies heavily on UNSOS for essential logistics including food, water, fuel, medical services, and transportation of troops. AUSSOM Commander Lt Gen Sam Kavuma has warned that if UNSOS support ends, it could significantly affect the mission’s capabilities, as UNSOS provides about 85 percent of AUSSOM’s support requirements.

The handover of the Buurhakaba Forward Operating Base to the Somali National Army’s 60th Division in August 2026, supported by UNSOS, reflects the gradual transfer of security responsibilities. UNTMIS is set to conclude its operations by October 31, 2026, following a formal request from the Federal Government of Somalia.

Critical Note

The US proposal for a 12-month drawdown is a pragmatic compromise that recognises the logistical realities of winding down a mission as complex as UNSOS. A rapid liquidation would leave AUSSOM without critical support before alternative arrangements are in place, potentially undermining the security gains of the past decade. By allowing a more measured transition, Washington has created space for the UN, AU, and Somali government to plan the transfer of logistical functions and assets.

Yet the proposal remains a negotiating position, not a final agreement. The gap between the US position and the 18-24 month timeline sought by Somalia and the AU reflects deeper tensions about burden-sharing and the pace of Somalia’s security transition. The US has made clear it views the status quo as unsustainable and wants resources redirected toward priorities with more immediate implications for American interests. For Somalia and the AU, the concern is that moving too quickly could leave AUSSOM and other international security contributors without critical logistical support before Somali forces are ready to assume full responsibility.

The eventual compromise will determine not only how long UNSOS remains operational but also which of its functions and assets can be transferred rather than liquidated, and who pays for the transition. The UK, as penholder, will play a central role in brokering a solution that balances Washington’s demand for a defined exit with the AU and Somalia’s need for a longer transition. The financial question is tied directly to the diplomatic one: how much time should UNSOS be given to spend, transfer, and wind down? The answer will shape Somalia’s security architecture for years to come.