Why Africa’s conflicts demand a diplomatic reset

Inclusive Dia, logue For Peace: African Union Panel Of The Wise Engages Religious And Traditional Leaders From The Sahel And West Africa. PHOTO: Zsófia Ságodi, The Organization for World Peace 

By Pius Lemi Pius

At major international diplomatic forums, Africa is increasingly absent from the center of discussions despite remaining one of the world’s most active theatres of conflict. 

From civil wars and insurgencies to election-related violence and democratic backsliding, the continent continues to face layered and complex security challenges that would ordinarily justify sustained global attention.

Across regions, threats persist. Somalia continues to battle Al-Shabaab, while Nigeria confronts Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP). 

In the Sahel, Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) remains active, alongside a wave of military coups that have reshaped governance structures.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the resurgence of the M23 rebel group underscores the fragility of peace in the Great Lakes region. Elsewhere, electoral tensions and governance concerns from Tanzania to Uganda and Somalia highlight the strain on democratic institutions.

Yet, despite this landscape, Africa’s agenda has struggled to secure priority positioning in influential global security platforms such as the Munich Security Conference.

This absence raises concerns about how global strategies are formulated and whose voices shape them.

Civilians have increasingly become the victims of armed conflict. In response, the Security Council has made protecting civilians a focus of modern peacekeeping.  PHOTO: UN Peace Mission

In the post-Cold War era, the international response to African conflicts has often leaned toward military intervention, guided by frameworks such as the African Union’s principle of non-indifference and the United Nations’ Responsibility to Protect (R2P). 

These doctrines were designed to prevent mass atrocities and have, in some cases, helped stabilize volatile situations.

However, the dominance of military approaches has arguably come at the expense of sustained diplomatic engagement. While interventions may contain violence in the short term, they rarely address the structural and historical drivers of conflict.

 As a result, cycles of instability persist, raising questions about the long-term effectiveness of force-centric strategies.

Efforts to prioritize “African solutions to African problems” have also delivered mixed outcomes. 

The African Union, alongside regional and sub-regional bodies, has frequently deployed mediation initiatives led by high-profile envoys, including former heads of state. Notable examples include Olusegun Obasanjo’s diplomatic engagement in Senegal and Thabo Mbeki’s mediation in Zimbabwe.

Munich Security Conference 2024: two elephants, one room. The conference discussed key global security issues, elevating the US – but leaving Africa in the blind spot. Picture: ©Ottilia Anna Maunganidze/ISS.

While such initiatives demonstrate continental ownership, their results have often been limited. Analysts point to gaps in negotiation capacity, insufficient understanding of local conflict dynamics, and a reluctance to directly confront rights violations as recurring challenges. 

In some cases, mediation efforts have produced temporary compromises rather than durable peace, leaving underlying tensions unresolved.

At the same time, Africa’s reliance on external partners remains significant. Financial, logistical, and technical support from actors such as the European Union, the United States, and China continues to underpin both military and development efforts.

 Even regional interventions have often depended on external backing, raising questions about autonomy and sustainability.

Military operations themselves face constraints. Many missions are underfunded, under-equipped, and reliant on foreign assistance, limiting their operational effectiveness. 

More fundamentally, military force, while sometimes necessary, cannot substitute for political solutions. It can impose order, but it cannot by itself build consensus, legitimacy, or trust.

This raises a critical question: why are diplomatic tools, such as negotiation, mediation, persuasion, and inclusive dialogue, not more consistently prioritized?

Part of the answer lies in execution. Effective diplomacy requires skilled negotiators, deep contextual knowledge, and sustained engagement resources that are not always adequately developed or deployed. 

Where diplomacy is pursued, it is sometimes undermined by short-term approaches or a lack of political will to address sensitive issues, including governance failures and human rights abuses.

Children seeking refuge near in North Kivu. UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Importantly, not all African conflicts originate within the continent. Some are linked to transnational extremist networks, while others are shaped by external geopolitical and ideological influences. 

This interconnectedness reinforces the need for inclusive global frameworks that recognize Africa not merely as a site of intervention but as an equal stakeholder in shaping solutions.

Excluding Africa from key diplomatic platforms risks narrowing the range of policy options and weakening collective responses to shared security challenges. 

If global actors contribute, directly or indirectly, to instability, then responsibility for solutions must also be shared, with African voices fully represented.

Ultimately, the path to sustainable peace in Africa lies in rebalancing the equation. Military intervention may remain a necessary tool in certain contexts, but it cannot be the default response. 

A stronger emphasis on credible, well-resourced diplomacy anchored in local realities and supported by global cooperation offers a more durable route forward.