UN Reform and Funding Peacekeeping in Africa

This research paper by Jakkie Cilliers examines the financial and structural challenges of expanding peacekeeping capacities in Africa, specifically focusing on the relationship between the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), and regional organisations. It analyzes the proposed 'vertical deepening' of regional peacekeeping and the 'horizontal expansion' into peacebuilding, while evaluating the efficacy of the EU Peace Facility and the funding gaps for the African Standby Force (ASF).

• The UN is moving toward a model of 'vertical deepening' where it relies more heavily on regional organisations for peacekeeping under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, rather than expanding its own standing reserve capacity, which is seen as unlikely to be supported by major contributors like the United States.
• There is a significant gap between the peacekeeping missions Africa can theoretically fund and those it cannot. While Africa might fund limited Chapter VI observer missions (such as MINURSO at US$44.04 million per year), large-scale missions like UNMIS (projected at US$1 billion) or MONUC (US$746 million) are not viable as African-funded operations.
• The EU Peace Facility was established to fund AU-led peace support operations, with an initial earmark of 250 million. However, the facility is viewed as a 'once-off measure' and is considered inadequate to meet current demands, with ultimate control remaining in Brussels rather than Addis Ababa.
• The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and its successor AMIS II were almost entirely funded by external partners. For AMIS II, the AU requested EU support for a budget of 177 million, with additional contributions from the UK, Canada, and the US.
• Funding for Disarmament, Demobilisation and Resettlement (DDR) is critically underfunded because it relies on voluntary contributions rather than assessed contributions. This shortfall is identified as a primary reason why half of the countries emerging from violent conflict revert to conflict within five years.
• The author identifies seven potential options for funding regional peacekeeping operational costs, ranging from UN assessed contributions and voluntary trust funds to multilateral support (like the EU Peace Facility), bilateral arrangements, and funding by the regional Member States themselves.
• There is a lack of coherence between G8 members regarding Africa's peacekeeping future: European countries generally view the African Standby Force (ASF) as a bridging force that still requires external support, whereas the United States views African peacekeeping as a replacement for UN deployment in the region.

APA

Cilliers, J. (2005). UN Reform and Funding Peacekeeping in Africa. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ECILLIERS.PDF

Chicago

Cilliers, Jakkie. UN Reform and Funding Peacekeeping in Africa. Institute for Security Studies, 2005. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ECILLIERS.PDF.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cilliers |first1=Jakkie |title=UN Reform and Funding Peacekeeping in Africa |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=2005 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ECILLIERS.PDF |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cilliers2005reform, author = {Cilliers, Jakkie}, title = {{UN Reform and Funding Peacekeeping in Africa}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2005}, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/ECILLIERS.PDF}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }