Home Blog Page 27

This Week in Peace #80: May 2

By
Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Russia President Vladimir Putin declared a unilateral ceasefire which was met with suspicion. Screen grab via Al Jazeera video.

This week, Myanmar’s earthquake survivors face renewed violence amid ongoing conflict. Russia declares unilateral ceasefire amid Ukraine conflict. Gaza ceasefire talks show signs of progress, Qatari PM says. Will Rwanda and DRC reach a peace agreement?

Myanmar’s Earthquake Survivors Face Renewed Violence Amid Ongoing Conflict

One month after a devastating 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar on March 28, 2025, the nation grapples with compounded crises. The quake resulted in over 3,770 deaths and more than 5,100 injuries, leaving survivors in dire conditions with limited access to clean water, sanitation, and shelter.

Despite initial ceasefire declarations to facilitate relief efforts, reports indicate that the country’s ruling junta has continued airstrikes, complicating aid delivery and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. On April 28, the London-based Centre for Information resilience reported that it had documented 80 air attack incidents across Myanmar between March 28 and April 24. The CIR also reported several paramotor attacks. 

Myanmar has remained in a cycle of conflict and oppression since the junta took over the country in a coup in February 2021. The country’s various ethnic groups have been fighting for autonomy, and those who openly oppose the junta often face persecution and violence.

Russia Declares Unilateral Ceasefire Amid Ukraine Conflict

On April 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a 72-hour unilateral ceasefire in Ukraine, set to coincide with Victory Day commemorations from May 8 to 10. The Kremlin described the pause as a humanitarian gesture and urged Ukraine to reciprocate.

However, Ukrainian officials expressed skepticism, questioning the timing and sincerity of the ceasefire, and called for an immediate and genuine cessation of hostilities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the ceasefire as an “attempt at manipulation,” noting that Putin had not accepted the 30-day ceasefire that Ukraine had agreed to.

Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said, “If Russia truly wants peace, it must cease fire immediately,” adding that Ukraine was ready for a “lasting, reliable and complete ceasefire” for at least 30 days. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that while US President Donald Trump welcomed Putin’s willingness to pause the conflict, Trump has been very clear that he wants a permanent ceasefire and a peaceful resolution.

Gaza Ceasefire Talks Show Signs of Progress, Qatari PM Says

Negotiations aimed at establishing a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza have reportedly showed some signs of progress. The talks are said to be witnessing a “a bit of progress” according to Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. After Hamas rejected Israel’s most recent ceasefire over a week ago, the group now seems set on an agreement involving the release of all remaining hostages as part of a deal to end hostilities for at least five years, BBC reported.

However, the PM noted that the two parties still disagree on what a ceasefire would entail, and that while Hamas had agreed to hand over the remaining hostages in exchange for an end to war, Israel wanted the hostages released without a vision for an end to the conflict.

Israelis and Palestinians have suffered painful losses due to the war since October 7, 2023, when over 1,200 people were killed in Israel. On April 27, Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry reported that 52,243 Palestinians had been killed within the past 18 months. 

Will Rwanda and DRC Reach a Peace Agreement?

After signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on April 25, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) aim to draft a peace deal by May 2, committing to respect each other’s sovereignty and refraining from militarily supporting armed groups.

This development comes just after the government of the (DRC) and the March 23rd armed movement (M23) signed a joint declaration on April 24, committing to work to restore peace after years of violence in the DRC’s eastern region.  Rwanda has actively backed M23, as revealed in an investigation commissioned by the UN Security Council, however, Rwanda denies supporting the group.

Some analysts are taking a cautious approach to the planned agreement, saying that it is not yet clearly agreed  whether M23 rebels must withdraw from occupied territories. It remains to be seen whether the two countries will reach a peace agreement.

Keywords: Myanmar, earthquake, humanitarian crisis, Russia, Ukraine, ceasefire, Gaza, Israel, Hamas, peacebuilding, conflict resolution, DRC

Joint Declaration Between DRC Government and M23: A Fragile Glow in the Congolese Night

By
Anicet Kimonyo
-
0
Maman Uzamukunda marceline, displaced from Lushagala, from Masisi territory, DRC, Photo taken January 2025 by Anicet Kimonyo.

The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the March 23rd armed movement (M23) have taken a step towards peace. The two parties have separately signed a joint declaration, committing to work to restore peace after years of violence in the DRC’s eastern region. 

Formed in 2012, the M23 rebellion is composed of several former members of the various rebellions that have followed one another since 1997, including the AFDL, RCD, and CNDP. These rebels are members of several ethnicities, including Tutsis who claim they are defending their minority brothers and fighting for good governance. The Rwanda-backed M23 resurfaced in November 2021 after nearly a decade of dormancy. The group captured Goma, the region’s largest city and capital of North Kivu province, on January 27, 2025. It has since continued to capture more territory. DRC Prime Minister Judith Suminwa said in February that at least 7,000 people had been killed in fighting since January. Meanwhile, over 7 million people have been displaced due to the conflict, largely living in dire conditions.

The new declaration, made public on April 23, 2025, represents a modest but significant advancement on the difficult path towards lasting stability in the region. Amidst hesitant hope and skepticism, the population of Goma, the current stronghold of the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC)-M23 movement, oscillates between relief and distrust.

In the city’s streets, many welcome this diplomatic opening. Nizeyimana Jean Claude, a lawyer, expresses his high expectations to Peace News Network (PNN). “We desire lasting peace and not ephemeral solutions. True reconciliation inevitably requires justice,” he said. For Claude, no stability will be possible without reparations for the victims of past atrocities. He also emphasizes the necessity of an inclusive dialogue, which he says is the only way to heal society’s wounds sustainably.

Overview of Goma, photo by Anicet Kimonyo.

However, the enthusiasm is not unanimous. Nzanzu Daniel, a human rights activist, is much more cautious. In his view, recent history calls for prudence. “We experienced the 2008 agreements, and we know their consequences. The hasty integration of rebels into the army and political institutions was a serious mistake. It is crucial to avoid repeating those same errors,” Daniel warns.

During a briefing on April 24, DRC government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya spoke about the joint statement from the DRC delegation and that of AFC-M23. 

“I think we have taken a step that is not the only one because now the question, for example, of concluding the process with Rwanda will no longer arise as we have started the first phase of the ceasefire,” Muyaya said. “We will see how it consolidates, but subsequently, there will be other rounds of discussions that will be agreed upon and scheduled by the mediator.” 

On the international front, several states have also welcomed the development, seeing it as an opportunity to break the vicious cycle of conflicts. Belgium’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Prévôt, expressed support for the initiative on X, saying, “I am pleased with the agreement announced by the DRC and M23/AFC aimed at establishing a truce and a ceasefire, paving the way for essential dialogue to restore lasting peace in Eastern Congo.” The Belgian diplomat also announced his imminent visit to the region, highlighting Brussels’ support for efforts led under the facilitation of Qatar and regional organizations the East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) has not remained indifferent to this step forward. The UN mission on X praised “the joint commitment to establish a truce as a basis for an effective ceasefire” and commended “the renewed determination demonstrated by both parties to prioritize dialogue and peaceful conflict resolution.”

A process that remains fragile

The joint declaration, although signed separately by both delegations—Lawrence Kanyuka for M23/AFC and Papy Mbuyi Kanguvu for Kinshasa—commits the protagonists to an immediate end to hostilities and to ban any hate speech or intimidation. Media, religious authorities, and local communities will thus have an important role to play in supporting this emerging de-escalation dynamic.

A displaced mother from Rugari living in the Lushagala 1 camp in Nyiragongo territory. Photo by Anicet Kimonyo.

It remains to be seen whether the planned dialogue will address the issues in Eastern DRC long claimed by M23 and its allies to be root causes of the conflict. Among these demands are security for Congolese Tutsis and an end to discrimination against them, and facilitating the return of Congolese Tutsi refugees who have been living in neighboring countries for nearly three decades.

However, some of the rebel movement’s demands risk offending a segment of public opinion. The request for amnesty for its members prosecuted by the Congolese justice system and their participation in the management of institutions revives painful memories. Many fear a repetition of past mistakes, where the integration of ex-combatants into the army and the administration contributed to the weakening of state structures and the perpetuation of chronic instability in the region.

Political actors such as Deputy Gracien Iracan and human rights activists such as Daniel are already warning against any form of political bargaining that would disregard the necessity of genuine institutional and military reform. Many Congolese people view the fragility of the state as one of the root causes of the successive rebellions that have ravaged the country for more than two decades.

The city of Goma, photo by Anicet Kimonyo.

Qatar, a Discreet Architect

In this attempt at normalization, Qatar plays a crucial mediating role. The expressions of gratitude addressed to Doha in the joint declaration are not insignificant. For several months the emirate has been working behind the scenes, to reconcile the opposing positions. Its action, discreet yet resolute, is part of a broader desire to increase its diplomatic influence in Africa.

The success of this mediation could offer Qatar a stronger stature on the international stage, but it will depend above all on the ability of the Congolese parties to make sincere concessions, far from short-term calculations and superficial postures.

Uncertain Futures

Despite the hope created by this announcement, caution remains essential. The DRC remains trapped in a cycle of violence where a culture of impunity thrives, where justice is often silenced, and where the use of force still appears to many as a shortcut to power.

In this context, making dialogue a genuine lever for transformation will require more than signatures on paper. It will take strong actions, commitments kept, and an unwavering political will to break the spiral of chaos.

Keywords: DRC, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Congo, Congolese, M23, rebels, declaration, ceasefire, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, Tutsis

Pope Francis: A Believer in Peace

By
Peace News Staff
-
0
Francis on the occasion of the canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II, photo by Jeffrey Bruno via Wikipedia.

Pope Francis, the leader of the global Catholic Church, died on April 21 – Easter Monday. Known for his relatively progressive views, the Argentinian prelate, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, made human rights, peace, and conflict resolution defining elements of his 12-year-long papacy.

Francis, who was elected pope in 2013 after the resignation of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, would come to play the role of peacebuilder and mediator in disputes and conflicts all over the world. The former Archbishop of Buenos Aires’ diplomatic efforts were not universally successful or even bereft of criticism, but they were central to his commitment to peace.

Early on in his papacy, Francis and Vatican diplomats were key to a historic 2014 deal that led to the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba, in what The Economist’s John Hooper described in The Guardian as “the biggest success of the Vatican’s ultra-discreet diplomacy for at least 30 years.” The pope himself addressed a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama and his Cuban counterpart, Raul Castro, calling on them to “resolve humanitarian questions of common interest.” Both leaders credited the pontiff’s role in the diplomatic breakthrough.

After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022,  Francis referred to the war as a “negation of God’s dream,” and repeatedly expressed his empathy with Ukraine’s civilian population. However, in an attempt to bridge the gap between Kyiv and Moscow the pontiff exercised neutrality and avoided direct confrontation with Vladimir Putin. His calls for negotiations and hopes that Ukraine demonstrate “the courage of the white flag” frustrated many Ukrainians, and were not successful in ending the war.

In the Middle East, Francis also aimed to be a neutral peacebuilder, offering gestures of understanding to both Israelis and Palestinians. In 2014, he hosted Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres for a prayer summit in the Vatican. Under Francis, the Vatican recognized the State of Palestine and established diplomatic relations with the PA in 2015, a move which was met with criticism by the Israeli government. Francis condemned Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel as “abominable” but was also highly critical of Israel’s military strikes in Gaza. 

Francis was also active in interreligious dialogue. He was the first pope to visit the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq. In 2019, he signed a joint declaration of religious understanding with Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and the highest authority among Sunni Muslims. He made frequent visits to Muslim and Buddhist majority nations, such as Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Mongolia. He also condemned antisemitism and maintained warm relations with the Jewish community and Jewish religious leaders.

Pope Francis was not immune from criticism, and was challenged by victims of sexual abuse for not acting boldly enough in response to widespread allegations of miconduct within the Catholic Church. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), a leading US-founded group supporting victims of clerical abuse, said Francis’ papacy was “a preventable catastrophe for the children and vulnerable people who were abused during his tenure.”

During his last public address on the day before his passing, the pope used his Resurrection Sunday “Urbi et Orbi” speech to call for peace in the world. He asked that “the risen Christ grant Ukraine, devastated by war, his Easter gift of peace, and encourage all parties involved to pursue efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace.” He also appealed for a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages held by Hamas.

Francis also expressed wishes for peace in other, often ignored conflicts, such as Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Armenia-Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Sudan, South Sudan, Myanmar, and the Western Balkans, Sahel, Great Lakes, and Horn of Africa regions.

Fittingly, after a life lived in service to the victims of armed conflict, Pope Francis marked his final address with an appeal for peace, saying, “I would like us to renew our hope that peace is possible!”

Keywords: Pope Francis, Pope, Catholic, religion, faith, peace, world peace, interfaith, interfaith dialogue, Easter, Easter Monday, Catholic Church

Enhancing Peace, Security, and Stability in 21st Century Africa

By
Ernest Bai Koroma
-
0
Nairobi, Kenya, photo by Schreibkraft via Wikipedia.

The pursuit of peace, security, and stability has remained a central objective for many African states since they gained independence from colonial powers. While considerable progress has been made in building democratic institutions, promoting economic growth, and enhancing regional cooperation, the 21st century has brought complex, multidimensional threats that challenge the continent’s stability. These threats include the rapid increase in armed conflicts, violent extremism, state fragility, transnational crime, climate insecurity, and governance deficits. Addressing them requires integrated and context-sensitive approaches that reinforce local capacities, foster inclusive governance, and deepen regional and international partnerships.

The Nature of Contemporary Security Threats in Africa

Africa’s security landscape has evolved significantly in the 21st century. Traditional inter-state wars have given way to intra-state conflicts, often rooted in identity politics, competition over natural resources, and marginalisation. Notably, regions such as the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, the Lake Chad Basin, and parts of Central and Southern Africa have become hotspots of recurring violence and fragility.

The rise of violent extremist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) in the Sahel has transformed security threats into regional challenges. These groups exploit weak state institutions, porous borders, and local grievances to mobilise support and destabilise entire regions (Dowd & Raleigh, 2013). Their operations have created significant humanitarian crises, displaced millions, and undermined development efforts.

In addition to armed conflict, Africa faces increasing challenges from transnational organised crime—including human trafficking, arms smuggling, and illicit mining—and climate-induced conflicts over land and water. These “non-traditional” threats blur the lines between security, development, and humanitarian action, necessitating a holistic response.

The Role of Regional and Continental Frameworks

Africa’s primary institutional response to peace and security threats is anchored in the African Union (AU)’s African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), which comprises key instruments such as the Peace and Security Council (PSC), the Panel of the Wise, the Continental Early Warning System (CEWS), and the African Standby Force (ASF). APSA embodies the AU’s normative commitment to “non-indifference” and the right to intervene in cases of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity (AU Constitutive Act, 2000, Art. 4(h)).

While APSA has seen some success—particularly in mediation, early warning, and conflict prevention—its operationalisation remains hampered by financial constraints, weak coordination with regional economic communities (RECs), and limited political will from member states (Williams, 2018). The ASF, for example, remains largely dormant due to funding and readiness challenges, despite the urgency for rapid deployment in crisis situations.

Nonetheless, regional initiatives have gained traction. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), for example, has demonstrated strong normative and military responses to coups and instability, including interventions in The Gambia in 2017 and its diplomatic engagement in Mali and Guinea. Similarly, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has played a central role in mediating the South Sudan conflict.

Governance, Inclusion, and the Prevention Agenda

Peace and security cannot be achieved solely through military means. At the heart of many African conflicts lie structural grievances—governance deficits, social exclusion, youth unemployment, and inequality. A durable peace therefore requires inclusive political systems, responsive institutions, and the empowerment of marginalised communities.

The United Nations and the AU have increasingly embraced a “sustaining peace” agenda, which emphasises conflict prevention, local peacebuilding, and inclusive governance. Empirical studies confirm that inclusive political settlements and power-sharing arrangements significantly reduce the risk of conflict recurrence (Walter, 2002; Langer et al., 2011). Similarly, women’s participation in peace processes, in line with UNSCR 1325, has been shown to enhance the durability and legitimacy of peace agreements (O’Reilly et al., 2015).

Youth engagement is equally critical. With over 60% of Africa’s population under the age of 25, addressing youth marginalisation is central to conflict prevention. Youth unemployment, lack of political voice, and social alienation have been exploited by extremist recruiters and political agitators. National strategies that promote youth entrepreneurship, civic education, and representation in governance structures are essential for long-term stability.

The Imperative of International Partnerships and Local Ownership

Enhancing peace and security in Africa also requires stronger partnerships with international actors. The UN-AU partnership has evolved into a model of collaborative peace operations, as demonstrated by joint missions in Darfur (UNAMID) and Somalia (ATMIS, previously AMISOM). However, external support must respect African agency and avoid undermining local ownership.

Sustainable peacebuilding depends on locally grounded solutions. Indigenous institutions, traditional authorities, and community-based organisations have historically played pivotal roles in resolving disputes and maintaining social cohesion. Revitalising these mechanisms and integrating them into national peacebuilding frameworks can enhance legitimacy and effectiveness.

Africa’s peace and security challenges in the 21st century are complex, but not insurmountable. They demand a shift from reactive responses to proactive, preventive, and inclusive strategies that combine political, developmental, and security dimensions. Strengthening the AU and RECs, fostering democratic governance, investing in youth and women’s empowerment, and promoting regional integration and solidarity are indispensable. Only through comprehensive, locally grounded, and coordinated efforts can the vision of a peaceful, secure, and stable Africa become a reality.

Keywords: peace, security, stability, Africa, armed conflict, conflict, conflict resolution, African union, extremism

Addressing Cameroon’s Anglophone Crisis: Why the Special Status Must Be Redefined

By
Robert Kosho Ndiyun
-
0
People in Cameroon's South West, an Anglophone region. Photo by Happiraphael via Wikipedia.

Cameroon’s Anglophone crisis began in 2016 when peaceful protests by lawyers and teachers in the English-speaking North West and South West Regions of Cameroon were met with violence by the government. The protesters demanded respect for the Anglo-Saxon system of education and the Common Law legal system. 

This sparked widespread demonstrations and radicalisation of separatist groups, leading to armed conflict. The situation worsened, causing human rights abuses, mass displacements, and many casualties, while government repression deepened tensions. The key demands of the peaceful protests further expanded to include not just effective decentralisation, as outlined in the 1996 constitution, but also a return to the pre-1972 federal system or complete secession from Cameroon. 

In 2019, President Paul Biya pledged to address the frustrations of the North West and South West populations by speeding up decentralisation. Despite the special status granted to these regions, Anglophones continue to face marginalization, and violence continues.

Content of the special status arrangement

The country’s National Dialogue was organized in 2019 in Yaoundé. The dialogue recommended implementing Article 62(2) of the constitution for these regions, leading to the creation of a special status for the North West and South West under the 2019 law on Regional and Local Authorities. The special status sets these regions apart from the other eight regions of Cameroon. It recognises their distinct Anglophone educational and legal systems, and establishes a governance framework that respects their historical and cultural values while maintaining the state’s primacy and national unity.

This special status aims to address the unique needs of the Anglophone population. It grants the North West and South West unique autonomy, allowing them to exercise special powers beyond those granted to the other eight regions. They can participate in shaping national policies related to the Anglophone education system, establish regional development entities, and define the status of traditional authorities. The 2019 law also permits the central government to consult these regions on public justice administration issues and to involve them in managing public services within their territories.

Distinct institutional frameworks have been created for these Anglophone regions, including a bicameral Regional Assembly, a Regional Executive Council, and a Public Independent Conciliator, unlike the other regions that only have a Regional Council and its President. The Regional Assembly consists of a House of Divisional Representatives, which includes 70 councilors and five committees, and a House of Chiefs made up of 20 traditional authorities and two committees. This structure aims to enhance local governance and representation.

Anglophone communities initially expected full autonomy and a federal structure to address grievances like marginalization and low representation. However, these expectations for improved governance and resource control have not been adequately met. Many Anglophones feel disillusioned by the lack of progress in public service delivery and political representation, leading to a sense of betrayal. This gap between the promised special status and actual conditions has fueled frustration and violence in the regions.

Effectiveness of the special status

The implementation of special status in Cameroon has concentrated power within the central government, leaving subnational governments feeling excluded from key policy-making processes. While Regional Assemblies were created to mimic the federal structures of West Cameroon before 1972, they are significantly weaker. The current governors, appointed by the President of the Republic, hold veto power over decisions made by these Assemblies, limiting their autonomy and making them appear as extensions of the central government.

The 2019 law established a Common Decentralization Fund, mandating that at least 15% of annual revenue be allocated to support regions. However, actual allocations have fallen short, with only 7.2% in 2022 and 8% in 2023, leading to financial dependency that undermines regional governance. Although a National Commission on Bilingualism and Multiculturalism was created to address linguistic and cultural grievances, it has been criticized for failing to adequately tackle these issues. Many Anglophones feel that government efforts do not address systemic problems like representation in decision-making.

Moreover, claims of stakeholder engagement during the Major National Dialogue are questioned, as only pro-government elites were reportedly consulted. This has fostered distrust among Anglophones, as important topics like federalism and secession were excluded from discussions. Many special status institutions are filled with former pro-government officials, further alienating the community. Despite the intention to remedy historical inequalities, Anglophones continue to experience neglect and marginalization. The central government retains tight control over regional decisions, and the law allows for the dissolution of special status institutions, creating instability and a disconnect from the population’s needs.

Many Anglophones feel that the special status has largely remained theoretical, with little impact on their daily lives. The continued dominance of the French language in public institutions, lack of meaningful economic development projects, and the central government’s reluctance to fully empower local authorities contribute to the perception that the policy is ineffective. While pro-government Anglophone elites argue that the policy is slowly addressing crisis triggers, separatist groups reject it outright. The ongoing high cost of living, violence, and human rights abuses reinforce the belief that the special status has not alleviated the crisis.

The Anglophone community emphasizes that this top-down policy lacks grassroots engagement and has failed to bring about real change. The conflict persists with issues like crime, abductions, and school closures, alongside ongoing confrontations between government forces and separatists. Victims continue to blame the government for their struggles, calling for genuine political will to include diverse community voices in a meaningful dialogue aimed at reconciliation, conflict transformation, and economic empowerment.

Redefining the special status

The current special status for Cameroon’s Anglophone regions is largely a façade of autonomy, lacking real devolved powers and resources. Despite limited support from Anglophones and rejection by separatist leaders, this status could serve as a basis for fostering consensus in peace negotiations. It provides a legal framework that recognizes Anglophone identity and promotes regional autonomy within a decentralized system.

To make this framework effective, genuine dialogue is essential. Engagement with the Anglophone population must include substantial consultations that involve all stakeholders, including marginalised groups and separatist leaders. This approach can help bridge the divide between the central government’s rejection of separation and the separatists’ demand for federalism and secession. Strengthening local governance mechanisms is crucial. Regional assemblies should have the authority to recommend legislation in key areas including education, language, and judicial matters, in order to address core grievances. Empowering local authorities and involving them in decision-making can link policy to practice.

Additionally, reforms should ensure effective representation of Anglophone concerns, including provisions for joint sessions between the North West and South West Regional Assemblies. Transitioning to direct universal suffrage in regional assembly elections would enhance legitimacy and voter engagement. Moreover, establishing a commissioner for marginalised groups and expanding the authority of the Public Independent Conciliator to address disputes can further promote inclusivity. Reforming the special status to empower regional assemblies could restore trust and create a pathway for inclusive political dialogue, ultimately contributing to stability and peace in the Anglophone regions.

Keywords: Cameroon, Anglophone Crisis, Anglophone, conflict, conflict resolution, Francophone, peace, Africa

1...262728...179Page 27 of 179