Home Blog Page 6

Youth Leadership in Cybersecurity Can Sustain Peace in Africa

By
Castor Mfugale
-
0
Cotonou, Littoral Department, Benin, photo by Iwaria via Pexels.

In July 2021, a major cyberattack forced South Africa’s Transnet, the state-owned logistics company that manages key ports, to shut down parts of its digital systems, disrupting cargo operations across several ports and slowing trade in the region. The incident illustrated how cyber vulnerabilities can quickly escalate beyond technical disruptions to affect economic stability and public trust. Similar digital threats are increasingly emerging across Africa, demonstrating that cybersecurity is not merely a technological concern but a governance challenge with implications for peace and stability. 

In the digital age, cyberspace has become one of the most critical infrastructures shaping modern society. Governments, financial systems, healthcare services, education, and democratic institutions increasingly rely on digital networks to function effectively. While this transformation has expanded economic opportunities and global connectivity, it has also introduced new vulnerabilities that can destabilize institutions and undermine social cohesion.

Across Africa, cyber insecurity is already demonstrating its disruptive potential. In Kenya, election periods have been accompanied by waves of online disinformation designed to manipulate political narratives and intensify polarization. Nigeria, meanwhile, continues to confront sophisticated cybercrime networks that exploit digital systems for fraud and identity theft, undermining trust in the digital economy. 

These developments illustrate that cyber insecurity is not simply a technological issue; it is a governance and societal challenge with implications for political stability, economic development, and democratic legitimacy. Digital threats increasingly transcend national borders, enabling malicious actors to spread misinformation, launch ransomware attacks, and exploit institutional weaknesses at unprecedented speed.

A striking global example was the WannaCry ransomware attack of 2017, which infected more than 200,000 computers across 150 countries and disrupted hospitals, transportation systems, and government services. The attack demonstrated how cyber vulnerabilities can rapidly escalate into crises affecting public safety and national security. 

Yet despite the growing scale of cyber threats, cybersecurity strategies often remain narrowly focused on technological defenses such as surveillance systems, firewalls, and regulatory frameworks. While these measures are essential, they overlook a crucial dimension of cybersecurity: the human factor.

Many cyber incidents occur not because of highly sophisticated attacks, but because of everyday digital behaviors—sharing unverified information, using weak passwords, clicking suspicious links, or failing to recognize digital manipulation. These patterns reveal a fundamental reality: cybersecurity is not only a technical challenge but also a social and ethical one.

Reframing Cybersecurity as a Collective Ethical Responsibility

Addressing cyberspace vulnerabilities therefore requires moving beyond purely technical solutions toward human-centered governance frameworks. Digital environments are not neutral technological spaces; they are social ecosystems shaped by human behavior, cultural norms, and ethical choices.

Security outcomes depend not only on infrastructure protection but also on digital literacy, responsible communication, and ethical awareness among citizens.

Within this landscape, young people occupy a uniquely influential position. Globally, there are more than 1.2 billion people aged 15–24, representing one of the most digitally connected generations in history. In Africa, where nearly 60 percent of the population is under 25, youth is particularly central to digital life. 

Young people are not merely consumers of technology; they are creators of digital culture. Through social media platforms, online communities, and peer networks, youth shape how information spreads, how trust is built, and how digital norms evolve.

However, cybersecurity discourse often portrays youth primarily as victims of cyber risks—exposed to online scams, cyberbullying, and misinformation. While protection remains important, this narrative overlooks the significant potential of young people to act as contributors to cyber resilience.

Evidence from youth-centered cybersecurity initiatives demonstrates this potential. Programs that train students as digital ambassadors have helped improve cybersecurity awareness through peer-to-peer learning. In Kenya, youth-driven digital literacy initiatives have raised awareness about online scams and misinformation, while similar programs in Singapore have significantly reduced phishing vulnerability among students by promoting responsible online behavior.

These experiences suggest that empowering young people with ethical digital literacy and leadership skills can strengthen cybersecurity awareness and resilience within communities.

Youth Leadership as a Strategic Response

Recognizing youth as agents of cybersecurity governance offers a powerful pathway for addressing cyber vulnerabilities at their social roots. Because young people are deeply embedded in digital environments, their behaviors and interactions strongly influence the broader digital ecosystem.

When youth promote responsible online behavior—verifying information before sharing it, protecting personal data, and educating peers about cyber risks—they help create more resilient digital communities.

A practical approach for cultivating this kind of ethical leadership is the See–Judge–Act framework, which encourages critical reflection and responsible decision-making in digital environments.

The first stage, See, focuses on recognizing digital risks. Young people learn to identify misinformation, phishing attempts, and manipulative online content.

The second stage, Judge, involves evaluating the ethical implications of digital actions, balancing values such as privacy, security, transparency, and accountability.

The final stage, Act, translates ethical awareness into responsible behavior. This may include educating peers about online safety, promoting respectful digital communication, or participating in community-based digital literacy initiatives.

Through this process, youth move from being passive users of digital technologies to becoming active stewards of cyberspace.

Cybersecurity and Peacebuilding

Cybersecurity governance should therefore be understood as part of a broader peacebuilding agenda. Secure digital environments support democratic institutions, strengthen public trust, and reduce opportunities for digital manipulation, conflict escalation, and economic disruption.

Conversely, weak cybersecurity can amplify social divisions, enable digital crime, and undermine institutional legitimacy.

For Africa, where digital transformation is advancing rapidly, integrating ethical leadership into cybersecurity strategies is particularly important. Youth participation can help bridge the gap between technological policy frameworks and everyday digital behavior.

Empowering young people to act as ethical leaders within digital spaces does not only improve cybersecurity awareness—it also contributes to a culture of responsibility, cooperation, and resilience.

Toward a More Secure Digital Future

Cyberspace vulnerability remains a defining challenge of the 21st century, affecting governance, economies, and democratic stability. Sustainable cybersecurity requires ethical awareness, inclusive participation, and collective responsibility beyond technical fixes. Youth leadership is a strategic imperative, yet it develops under structural constraints. Digital inequality, weak training pathways, fragmented policies, and exposure to cyber risks limit effective engagement. These conditions shape leadership. See–Judge–Act faces limits: oversimplifying complex threats, inconsistent interpretation across contexts, weak institutional integration, and limited scalability in resource-constrained settings. Young leaders must navigate these barriers, advocate inclusion, and promote responsible digital behavior. By confronting these challenges, youth can transform cyberspace into a foundation for resilience, cooperation, and peace.

Keywords: Africa, cybersecurity, cyberattack, cyberattacks, South Africa, Kenya, Singapore, cyber, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, youth, young, African, WannaCry Ransomeware Attack

This Week in Peace #125: May 1

By
Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Street vendor with pushcart in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where the 'Walk for Peace' took place, photo by Thilina Alagiyawanna via Pexels.

This week, Thailand to terminate MOU for maritime cooperation with Cambodia. Pakistan-Afghanistan ceasefire remains fragile. Buddhist monks finish ‘walk for peace’ across Sri Lanka.

Thailand to Terminate MOU for Maritime Cooperation with Cambodia

Thailand this week told Cambodia at the 25th ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting in Brunei that it would withdraw from the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding on overlapping maritime claims. Thailand now plans to follow the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for future discussions. 

Thai foreign minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow said, “Despite being in effect for over 20 years, MOU 44 has failed to produce tangible progress.”

Phuangketkeow brought up past examples of Thailands’s maritime negotiations with Malaysia which led successful agreements to under UNCLOS principles without the need for a similar MOU.

On July 28, 2025, Thailand and Cambodia reached a ceasefire after days of escalation in conflict beginning on July 24. The escalation began a day after a landmine explosion injured five Thai soldiers, including one who lost his leg. However, the series of events that led to the escalation were disputed between the two countries, with both sides blaming the other. The ongoing conflict is over disputed land surrounding a temple in Cambodia.

At the recent ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting, both countries agreed to continue the ceasefire 

Pakistan-Afghanistan Ceasefire Remains Fragile

The ceasefire between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains fragile amidst ongoing violence. On April 27, Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities said that Pakistani mortars and missiles hit a university and residential neighborhoods in the eastern province of Kunar, killing at least seven people and injuring more than 80.

Meanwhile, Pakistani officials said at least three civilians were wounded by gunfire in South Waziristan. Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting denied that Pakistan had struck the university in Afghanistan. The dispute over the attacks on the university have triggered concerns about the ceasefire collapsing. 

This development comes after both countries attended peace talks in China following cross-border fighting after Pakistan launched airstrikes on Pakistan in February. Pakistan accuses the Taliban in Afghanistan of harboring militants who attack Pakistan. The UN’s office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs in Afghanistan posted on X on April 7 that the conflict had displaced 94,000 people.

Buddhist Monks Finish ‘Walk for Peace’ Across Sri Lanka

A group of Buddhist monks concluded their ‘walk for peace’ on April 28 at Independence Square in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The monks were received by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Muslim and Hindu faith leaders joined the monks, and Dissanayake stressed the responsibility of religious leaders to protect the dignity and essence of religious institutions, UCA News reported.

Venerable Pannakara Thera, the monk who led the walk, said that peace is influenced by how people treat each other. Thera added that spiritual and cultural values should be preserved to maintain nations’ cultural heritage, and that nations should avoid harming all sentient beings.

Back in February, the same group of monks completed another peace walk across the United States. Mallory McDuff for The Guardian observed that the monks’ journey was “a slow-moving meditation meant to embody peace, rather than argue for it.”

Keywords: Thailand, Cambodia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, ceasefire, walk, Colombo, Independence Square

What Peace Talks in Colombia, Syria, and Yemen Tell Us About Why Children Are Being Left Out

By
Sean Molloy
-
0
Children Studying Outdoors in Antioquia, Colombia. Photo by Daniel Higuita Tamayo.

When peace talks happen, they are meant to shape the future of a country. But one group is almost always missing from the table: children. This absence is striking. 

Children are among those most affected by conflict, yet they are rarely included in decisions about how peace is built. And today, as peace processes themselves are changing, their exclusion may be getting worse. Recent research on children’s involvement in peace processes highlights a worrying trend. As peace negotiations become more fragmented and focused on short-term deals, there is even less space for groups like children to be included.

A changing landscape of peace

For many years, peace agreements were seen as opportunities to transform societies. In places like Colombia, peace negotiations aimed not only to end violence but also to address deeper issues such as inequality, justice, and political participation. In these more ambitious processes, there was at least some space, however limited, for civil society groups to advocate for children’s rights. In Colombia’s 2016 peace process, for example, organisations worked to bring children’s experiences into negotiations. Former child soldiers shared their stories, and child-focused groups successfully pushed for provisions on reintegration and protection.

But today, peace processes are increasingly shifting away from these inclusive models. In conflicts such as Syria, negotiations have become more fragmented and dominated by powerful states and armed actors. Talks have often prioritised short-term stability over long-term transformation, with limited involvement from civil society and almost no role for children. Similarly, in many contemporary conflicts, peace agreements are no longer comprehensive national settlements. Instead, they are smaller, local, or temporary deals focused on stopping violence rather than reshaping society.

Why children are being pushed aside

These changes have important consequences for who gets included. Modern peace talks are often elite-driven. Seats at the table are limited and typically reserved for those with political or military power. This makes it difficult for any marginalised group, especially children, to be heard. At the same time, the actors involved in peace processes are changing. Where international organisations like the United Nations once played a central role, newer mediators, including regional powers and individual states, are becoming more influential. These actors may place less emphasis on human rights or inclusive participation.

In some contexts, there is also resistance to the idea that children should be involved at all. Different cultural and political perspectives shape how childhood is understood. In some settings, children are seen primarily as needing protection, not as people who can contribute to political decisions. All of this reduces the already limited space for children’s voices.

The limits of traditional approaches

For years, advocates have argued that children should be included in peace processes. These arguments are based on international law, moral claims, and practical benefits. For example, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to express their views on matters that affect them. Others argue that children bring unique perspectives and that participation can support their development and recovery.

But these arguments often assume a type of peace process that is becoming less common. If peace talks are no longer designed to be inclusive or transformative, then simply calling for participation is not enough. The challenge is not just that children are excluded. It is that the structure of peace processes themselves is changing in ways that make inclusion more difficult.

New opportunities beyond the negotiating table

Despite these challenges, new opportunities are emerging.

One is at the local level. In many conflicts, smaller, community-based agreements are playing an increasing role. These local processes may offer more space for participation, including for young people, because they are closer to everyday experiences and less dominated by elite actors. While some local processes may be limited to stopping violence rather than reshaping society, others may offer more space for participation, including for young people, because they are closer to everyday experiences and less dominated by elite actors. Even when children are formally included, limited decision-making power, tokenistic consultation practices, and adult-controlled agendas often constrain the substance and impact of their participation. 

Another is through civil society networks. In Colombia, organisations working together were able to influence peace negotiations by amplifying children’s voices. Similar networks, especially those rooted in local communities, can help bring children’s perspectives into discussions, even when they are not directly present at the table.

Technology is also opening new possibilities. In Yemen, digital tools have been used to engage young people across conflict lines, allowing them to share their views despite security risks. In Guatemala, online dialogues have enabled young people to discuss national issues and contribute ideas for change. These approaches do not replace formal participation, but they can help ensure that children’s voices are not entirely excluded.

Rethinking inclusion in peacebuilding

The reality is that peace processes today look very different from those of the past. They are more fragmented, more political, and often less focused on long-term transformation. This makes the inclusion of children more challenging, but also more urgent. If peace agreements are shaping the future of societies, then excluding children means ignoring the perspectives of those who will live with the consequences the longest. The question is no longer just how to include children in traditional peace talks. It is how to ensure their voices are heard in a changing and often more restrictive environment. This requires new approaches, ones that are flexible, local, and adapted to the realities of modern conflict. Because even if the table is shrinking, the need to listen to children has not.

Keywords: peace talks, children, Colombia, Syria, Yemen, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, participation, inclusion

Healing Divides in the Eastern Mediterranean: How Health Systems Can Become Bridges to Peace in Conflict Zones

By
Dan Campbell
-
0
Beirut, Lebanon, photo by Radosław Botev via Wikipedia.

When bullets are flying, it can sound naive to talk about vaccines. Yet in several of the world’s most violent conflicts, fighting has paused—sometimes for only a few hours—so children can line up for immunizations. Doctors have crossed front lines to treat patients from opposing factions. In waiting rooms thick with suspicion, families who would never share a meal sit shoulder to shoulder over a sick child.

According to a recent study by Jason Beste and colleagues, those moments are more than humanitarian footnotes. They offer clues to how health systems, if deliberately designed, can help rebuild trust in societies fractured by war.

This study examines decades of “health and peace” efforts across the World Health Organization’s Eastern Mediterranean Region, which stretches from North Africa to parts of South and West Asia. Of the region’s 21 countries, roughly two-thirds have experienced armed conflict in recent decades. Hospitals have been bombed, supply chains shattered and medical staff driven into exile. Maternal and infant mortality have climbed, and untreated trauma lingers long after front lines shift.

Rather than viewing health systems solely as casualties of war, the researchers suggest that they can also function as connectors, which are critical to peacebuilding across divides. The intellectual roots of health-based peacebuilding reach back more than a century. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) advanced the principle of medical neutrality: even in war, the wounded and those who treat them should be protected. After World War II, the creation of the World Health Organization (WHO) reinforced the idea that health is a universal concern transcending politics.

In the late 1990s, WHO formalized that logic through its “Health as a Bridge for Peace” framework. The premise was pragmatic: even bitter enemies often agree that children should be vaccinated and epidemics contained. Shared vulnerability to disease can create rare space for dialogue.

Researchers documented examples that illustrate the point. So-called “Days of Tranquility” have been negotiated to allow vaccination campaigns during active fighting. Rival armed groups have coordinated logistics and shared information so health workers could reach contested areas. In some settings, medical staff received training not only in clinical skills but also in negotiation and conflict sensitivity. Policymakers, the study found, have at times attempted to design health services perceived as equitable across ethnic, sectarian or political divides.

A related framework, known as “Peace through Health,” treats violence itself as a public health issue. It emphasizes preventing conflict by addressing structural drivers such as inequality and exclusion, reducing harm during war and rebuilding inclusive institutions afterward. In practice, that can mean integrating mental health services for trauma survivors, strengthening primary care in marginalized communities, and ensuring transparent allocation of resources.

Recent conflicts in Yemen and Syria underscore both the promise and the limits of such approaches. Emergency relief has saved countless lives, but short-term interventions do not automatically rebuild social cohesion. Recognizing that gap, WHO launched its Global Health and Peace Initiative, which aims to embed conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding considerations into routine health programming rather than treating them as add-ons.

Still, the study is careful not to overstate the case. Health programs can be politicized, obstructed or co-opted by armed actors seeking strategic advantage. Funding often arrives in short cycles, disappearing as relationships begin to take root. Many health professionals receive limited preparation for navigating political tensions, despite operating at their center.

Perhaps most striking is the lack of rigorous evidence linking health initiatives to sustained peace outcomes. While temporary ceasefires for immunization clearly save lives, few programs have systematically measured whether they generate durable trust or social cohesion. According to the authors, that evidentiary gap makes it harder to secure long-term investment from governments and donors.

At the same time, attacks on healthcare facilities and personnel have increased in several conflicts, eroding the norm of medical neutrality that underpins these efforts. When hospitals become targets, the notion of health as neutral ground weakens, and with it the possibility of health systems playing any stabilizing role.

No clinic can substitute for political negotiation or resolve entrenched grievances. But the study argues that the manner in which healthcare is delivered sends a powerful signal. Services distributed fairly across communities communicate inclusion and shared citizenship. Unequal access, by contrast, can deepen resentment and entrench division.

In fragile states, health systems often represent one of the few remaining interfaces between citizens and public institutions. Each vaccination campaign, reopened clinic or restored supply chain can embody a basic social contract: that every life holds equal worth.

For policymakers and donors searching for practical levers in protracted conflicts, the message is measured but clear. Health interventions alone will not end wars. Yet when designed with equity, neutrality, and long-term trust in mind, they may help create the conditions in which peace becomes more plausible.

Keywords: Eastern Mediterranean, healthcare, health, systems, peace, conflict, conflict resolution

This Week in Peace #124: April 24

By
Tara Abhasakun
-
0
Mogok, Mandalay Region, Myanmar, photo by Tony Wu via Pexels.

This week, rebel groups reject Myanmar junta’s call to peace talks. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) government and rebels agree on aid delivery and prisoner releases. South Sudan plans elections in December as country verges on civil war. 

Rebel Groups Reject Myanmar Junta’s Call to Peace Talks

On April 21, the leader of Myanmar’s junta, president Min Aung Hlaing, set a deadline of 100 days for rebel groups to join peace talks. However, two key rebel groups rejected the talks. 

Nay Phone Latt, a spokesperson for the National Unity Government, Myanmar’s main opposition group, said, “We all already understood that the military’s fake invitations are aimed at prolonging people’s subjugation under military rule.”

This development comes after, from December 2025 to January 2026, the junta held an election that was widely labeled as a sham, in which the junta emerged victorious.

Several ethnic groups in Myanmar are fighting for autonomy, and the country has a total of 21 armed ethnic organizations. Ten of these groups signed multilateral ceasefire agreements known as Nationwide Ceasefire Agreements or NCA, in 2015 and 2018 under previous governments. However, since the junta took over the country in a coup in February 2021, four of the groups that signed the agreement have resumed fighting. 

Saw Taw Nee, another spokesperson for the KNU, said the group has “no ⁠plans to return to negotiations or follow the NCA path.”

DRC Government and Rebels Agree on Aid Delivery and Prisoner Releases

On April 18, the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and M23 rebels issued a joint statement agreeing to ease humanitarian aid deliveries and release prisoners within 10 days as part of efforts “to continue building confidence.”

The two parties also signed a memorandum of understanding for a ceasefire monitoring mechanism that will “begin conducting surveillance, monitoring, verification, and reporting on the implementation of the permanent ceasefire between the parties.”

The DRC has been grappling with numerous armed conflicts since the 1990s.Since 2021, the M23 armed group, backed by Rwanda, has seized territory in eastern DRC, capturing the city of Goma in January 2025. Prime Minister Judith Suminwa said in February 2025 that at least 7,000 people had been killed in fighting since January of that year. Nearly 7 million people have been displaced across the country due to decades of conflict, largely living in dire conditions.

South Sudan Plans Elections in December as Country Verges on Civil War

South Sudan plans to hold elections in December, 2026, as the country verges on a civil war. The country’s information minister insisted that elections must be held this year, africanews reported. 

If the elections are held, they will mark the first national polls since the country gained independence from Sudan 15 years ago.

South Sudan’s conflict is between the military, which is loyal to Kiir, and insurgents believed to be allied with the suspended vice-president Riek Machar. Fighting between government and opposition forces continues to kill and injure civilians in several states, with 169 people killed and 4,000 displaced in the Abiemnhom area of Unity state on March 1. 

On March 17, UNICEF said around 100,000 South Sudanese people had fled to Ethiopia in Jonglei state.

Keywords: Myanmar, DRC, Congo, South Sudan, peace talks, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, civil war, elections, junta

1...567...188Page 6 of 188