Somalia's stance on peace missions — interference or local ownership?

Daily Maverick

2 days ago

Threats to the independence of peace support missions call for clarity on their relationship with host countries.
The Federal Government of Somalia has repeatedly used the 'persona non grata' principle to expel senior representatives of African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN) missions, citing 'misconduct' and 'interference in internal affairs'. Somalia is also playing a more pronounced but contested role in planning, deploying and repatriating AU peace support operations (PSOs) in the country.
These moves undermine missions' independence and hamper their ability to carry out mandated tasks. They also question host nations' increasing role in shaping mission strategy and operations. As the UN and AU explore the future of PSOs, the implications for existing and future peace missions must be considered.
The UN and AU have long supported Somalia through peace missions to help deal with the country's protracted civil war. For almost 20 years the AU has deployed three consecutive PSOs – the latest being the AU Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (Aussom) – with a mandate to help defeat violent extremist groups, including al-Shabaab, protect civilians and rebuild the country's governance capacity.
The UN has provided special political missions to support state-building, rule of law, justice and human rights. It also authorised the AU PSOs and provided them with logistical assistance.
Despite their many challenges and the persistent al-Shabaab threat, these missions have helped stabilise the country. Somalia has consolidated its government structures at federal and state levels, and an increasing number of regions have been liberated from al-Shabaab.
Thousands of peacekeepers have died for the cause of peace. The 3,500 AU mission personnel killed in Somalia between 2007 and 2023 nears the total deaths of all UN peacekeeping missions in 75 years worldwide.
Mission leaders walk a fine political line as they operate in Somalia. According to recent media reports, diplomatic concerns among Somali federal authorities resulted in Aussom acting head Sivuyile Bam being declared 'persona non grata'. Bam is also a deputy special representative to AU Commission chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf.
Neither side has issued an official statement, but Somalia reportedly accused Bam of sympathising with al-Shabaab, and the government hinted at 'misconduct' when announcing Bam's replacement. This announcement appears false since the AU Commission has yet to appoint a head and deputy head of Aussom.
Anonymous AU sources told ISS Today that the AU Commission withdrew Bam from the mission before Somalia expelled him. They said the reason was his briefing to the UN Security Council in April, which highlighted Aussom's funding and capabilities challenges, and the rise in al-Shabaab attacks.
Somalia has used these tactics before, when senior leaders of AU and UN missions were forced to leave the country for similar reasons.
In 2022, former AU Commission chairperson special representative and head of the first two AU PSOs, ambassador Francisco Madeira, was ejected. Somalia accused Madeira of 'engaging in acts that are incompatible with his status as representative of the AU Commission'. Former AU Commission chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat rejected the accusation, expressing his 'trust and confidence' in Madeira.
In 2019, Somalia expelled the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy and Mission Head Nicholas Haysom, accusing him of 'interfering with the country's internal affairs.' However, other sources said he was expelled because he was defending human rights in the country.
In recent years Somalia's government has increasingly contested the planning, deployment and repatriation of AU PSOs. For example, Burundi – one of the largest contributors to AU PSOs since 2008 – has said it will withdraw its forces from Somalia following disagreement with the government on the number of troops to be deployed.
These decisions were not Somalia's to make. Burundi's troop contribution was planned under the AU framework, and any decisions on expert and troop numbers deployed should have been made by the AU Commission.
Local and national ownership is generally recognised as key to a mission's effectiveness. In 2001, the UN endorsed the concept as a way to empower local actors and communities in the peacebuilding process. In principle though, this was not intended to compromise the strategic and operational independence of missions.
Tensions between host nations and peace missions are not new and are not restricted to Somalia. When Sudan, Mali, and Kosovo expelled UN mission leaders, the UN condemned their actions because the 'doctrine of 'persona non grata' is not applicable to UN personnel'. While the legality of 'persona non grata' in the context of UN and AU peace missions is still debatable, the implications for peace missions of using this tactic are evident.
At the very least, the threat of expulsion undermines the morale of mission personnel and their ability to act independently according to their mandates. Operational independence is vital to a mission's legitimacy in the eyes of host nation communities and the world. For Aussom, having an 'acting' head of mission since mid-April will limit its effectiveness.
The Somali government's direct dealings with Burundi on troop contributions to Aussom not only compromise mission independence but undermine troop-contributing countries' confidence in the AU Commission's decision-making.
This highlights the dilemma of state sovereignty and how to manage the principle of local ownership in peace operations. But once a country signs an agreement consenting to international support, it cedes some sovereignty in line with the mandate of UN and AU peace missions. Local ownership is important, but so too is ensuring missions' strategic and operational independence.
The latest developments in Somalia call for a rethink of how these relationships are structured and managed. The UN and AU should jointly define the role of host nations to ensure the independence of existing and future peace missions as part of a larger conversation about the relationship between host countries and peace missions. DM