Funding issues still a bone of contention with the UN Security Council
During their annual meeting, the PSC and the UN Security Council once again clashed over the issue of funding AU-led peace operations.
The 11th joint consultative meeting between the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the Peace and Security Council (PSC) took place on 7 and 8 September 2017 at the African Union (AU) headquarters in Addis Ababa. While there was agreement on several issues pertaining to peace and security in Africa, the two councils still do not see eye to eye when it comes to funding AU-led peace operations on the continent.
As was the case in 2016, the consultative meeting between the PSC and the UNSC last month was divided into an informal session, with the expected outcome of favouring frank debates on issues of common interest, and a formal meeting.
There were three items on the agenda of the informal session: AU–UN partnerships; the funding of AU-led peace support operations; and peacebuilding/post-conflict reconstruction and development. The formal meeting covered only the conflicts in South Sudan, Somalia and the Lake Chad Basin.
The formal meeting covered only the conflicts in South Sudan, Somalia and the Lake Chad Basin |
|
Like the previous edition that took place in New York last year, the consultative meeting seemed to move towards creating a framework that allows for an exchange on a wide range of issues – including those issues that are contentious.
Consensual assessments of crisis situations
On the crisis in the Lake Chad Basin, both bodies, but especially UNSC members, stressed the need to include the principle of respect for human rights in counter-terrorism policies. They also emphasised that governments’ primary responsibility was to protect civilians – echoing the argument in the recent UNSC resolution that denied the G5 Sahel Joint Force a Chapter VII authorisation. The PSC and the UNSC suggested a joint visit by the heads of the AU Commission, the World Bank and the UN to the region to enhance the mobilisation of resources. They also encouraged the Economic Commission of Central African States, the Economic Community of West African States and the Lake Chad Basin Commission to draft a common strategy for the region.
 UNSC members stressed the need to include the respect for human rights in counter-terrorism policies |
|
The discussions on the future of Somalia were again marked by the recurring disagreement between the UNSC and the PSC on the funding of the AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).
While the initial draft of the outcome of the consultative meeting by the PSC contained a reference to enhancing the predictability and durability of AMISOM funding, the final draft makes only a general call for enhanced funding of AU-led peace support operations authorised by the UNSC.
In anticipation of the report by the UN secretary-general on AMISOM funding, to be presented in November 2017, relevant stakeholders are called upon to come up with alternative solutions to fund the mission besides UN assessed contributions.
Different views on funding
Funding remains a major bone of contention between the two bodies. The PSC presented a coordinated view on funding during the informal meeting. PSC members expressed their frustration with the lack of progress regarding the use of assessed UN contributions in order to pay the salaries of troops deployed in AU-led peace support operations authorised by the UNSC. The PSC underlined the progress that has been made by the AU in complying with UN criteria to release funding from assessed contributions. These include the establishment of the AU Peace Fund and the AU’s adoption of a human rights compliance policy.
| Funding remains a major bone of contention between the two bodies |
|
Members of the UNSC have a different view of the funding issue. One permanent UNSC member, for example, emphasised that it excluded any use of assessed contributions for AU-led peace support operations unless progress was made in ensuring financial accountability and protecting human rights, among others.
It was also stressed that no further AMISOM funding through assessed contributions was to be expected soon. Other UNSC members argued that the issue of funding was not within the purview of the PSC and should rather be addressed at the level of the UN General Assembly, which has competence over budgetary matters. One member specifically stressed the need to explore solutions in bilateral support.
The debate around funding and AMISOM reflects the divergent views of PSC member states and some UNSC members on the achievements of AMISOM. The former considers the mission to be a success while the latter feels that, despite the achievements of the largest AU peace mission, it is not necessarily a partnership model for the two organisations.
This lack of progress regarding funding could hamper the operationalisation of the Peace Fund. Indeed, the fund was established on the assumption that if the AU provided 25% of the peace operations budget the UN would cover the remainder. In the absence of any firm decision from UNSC member states in this regard, it is debatable whether certain AU member states will maintain their commitment to contribute to the fund.
The Peace Fund is based on the newly adopted self-financing model of the AU, whereby a 0.2% levy on eligible imports would go to the AU and the Peace Fund. One UNSC member raised the issue of the 0.2% import levy’s compliance with World Trade Organization regulations. While this issue has been downplayed by the architects of the new self-financing model, this is not the case from the perspective of several of Africa’s trading partners, including the United States.
A positive evolution of the format
While PSC member states expressed their frustration with the lack of progress regarding funding, the joint consultative meeting has become an important forum for dialogue between the two bodies.
| The joint consultative meeting has become an important forum for dialogue between the two bodies |
|
It has to be noted that the PSC and the UNSC have very different perceptions of the importance of the meeting. The PSC views this meeting as critical and is calling for both enhanced formalisation and more joint action, while the UNSC sees it mainly as an informal discussion with no binding impact. This is illustrated by the systematic reference to ‘members of the UN Security Council’ rather than the ‘UNSC’ in past joint communiqués. Legally, UNSC members can engage the members of a regional body, but that does not constitute a binding commitment for the UNSC as an institution. There is also some reluctance to formalise the meetings to such an extent that it puts the two organisations on an equal footing. Most members of the UNSC believe it is important to keep the upper hand and stress its primacy in the relationship.
However, there is consensus among participants that the joint consultative meeting is a useful mechanism for maintaining dialogue and building closer cooperation between the UN and the AU in the area of peace and security. As the joint consultative meeting takes place on annual basis, there has been some progress in finding a format that allows frank discussions on issues of agreement and disagreement between the UNSC and the PSC. It helps primarily to diffuse tensions and clear up misunderstandings between the two bodies.
Picture: AMISOM
