Opinion Article on Committee Session #4

A Tale of Two Proposals: Funding the African Union Peace Support Operations

by Farras Rizqy Hafizh

Two contrasting funding proposals for Peace Support Operations (PSO) came at the second day of committee sessions in African Union (AU) council. One focuses heavily on internal contributions, while the other opens up opportunities for external funding. Both have their merits; however, one could have very serious implications.

Funding has been an important issue for the African Union during its years. In this conference, countries aim to establish a robust funding mechanism that could support the AU’s Peace Support Operations for many years to come, without too much reliance on external donors. Delegates managed to form two blocs of nations, with each providing distinct solutions to address the AU funding problem.

In Egypt, Central African Republic, and allies’ working papers, there is a strong emphasis on internal funding for PSO operations. Financial contributions by AU member states are touted as a main source of funding, with non-complying states facing sanctions up to the revocation of AU membership. In addition, there has been a proposal for compulsory import tax levies for all AU member states as a source of funding.

Chad, Niger, Rwanda, and allies are proposing regulation reform on external funding sources. Chad argued that at present the AU cannot rely solely on the economic capacity of African countries to provide funding, thus efforts should be directed to secure external funding and non-monetary contributions instead.

In Chad and allies’ proposal, contributions by member states may include troop deployments, medical assistance, and logistics. Chad have also stated that they wanted to quantify each country’s contribution based on their national priorities, be it military in the form of troops or economic grants.

There was also an emphasis on collaborating with external bodies such as the European Union and United Nations to provide financial support. Quoting from the delegate of Chad, “Even though we are independent, we still need the support of international aid.”

These two working papers present a stark contrast. Heavy reliance on internal funding for peacekeeping as proposed by Egypt is seen as a more sustainable solution in the long term, because it owes to member states’ consistent contribution.

However, the African Union is simply not ready. Existing infrastructure in the African Union peacekeeping forces have not been prepared yet to receive steady streams of internal financial contributions. Funding efforts and peacekeeping reforms need to take place in parallel with each other.

For example, at present the African Standby Forces (ASF) and African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC) roughly occupy the same role in the AU peacekeeping infrastructure, which is to provide immediate crisis response. Providing internally sourced funding to both these forces would be highly inefficient.

Instead, the AU should focus more on establishing reforms in sourcing external funding and working together with member states to ensure reforms in peacekeeping are taking place. Giving out sanctions to countries who cannot pay not only would be considered unwise, but also inefficient bearing in mind the state of current AU peacekeeping infrastructure.