Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa, your letter calls for peace. That objective is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the structure through which that peace is pursued. Because peace is not determined by intention. It is determined by process.
By Timothy Enongene Guest Editor-in-Chief The Independentist News
Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa, your recent open letter—issued in the aftermath of the visit of Pope Leo XIV—calls for “reciprocal concessions,” “shared responsibility,” and the immediate opening of inclusive dialogue within a national framework.
At first reading, these appeals appear measured, constructive, and necessary. In a conflict marked by prolonged suffering, few would dispute the urgency of peace. But it is precisely because of that urgency that your proposal must be examined with clarity.
Because the framework you advance does not simply call for dialogue. It defines the terms under which that dialogue would occur—and, by extension, the limits of what it can produce.
The Problem with “Reciprocal Concessions”
Your central proposition—that trust must be built through reciprocal gestures—rests on an assumption of balance. But reciprocity presumes symmetry. In a context where one party controls the institutions of the state, the security apparatus, and the legal framework, while the other operates under fragmentation and constraint, symmetry is not an objective condition. It is a narrative construction. And narrative constructions have consequences. When asymmetry is reframed as mutual responsibility, imbalance is not corrected—it is normalized.
Dialogue Within Predefined Boundaries
Your call for inclusive dialogue is clear. But the structure within which you place that dialogue is equally clear: a shared national framework, managed within existing institutional realities. That is not a neutral starting point. It is a predefinition of outcome.
When dialogue is anchored within the very structures at the center of the conflict, conducted without mutually accepted external guarantees, and framed by assumptions that cannot be questioned within the process, it ceases to be an open negotiation. It becomes a controlled engagement. And controlled engagements do not resolve structural conflicts. They manage them.
The Convergence with Reform Narratives
Your position does not stand in isolation. It converges with broader calls for a “negotiated solution” rooted in reform rather than transformation, as advanced by figures such as Simon Fobi Nchinda. This convergence is significant. Because it reflects a shared premise: that the crisis can be addressed through adjustment of the existing system rather than through a re-examination of its foundational structure.
History suggests otherwise./The Strategic Reframing of the Conflict
Systems that generate a conflict rarely resolve it through internal adjustment alone. Perhaps the most consequential effect of your proposal is not what it says explicitly—but what it does implicitly.
By emphasizing internal dialogue and national responsibility, it repositions the conflict from a matter of international concern to one of domestic governance. This shift is not semantic. It is strategic.
Because once the conflict is framed as internal, the necessity of international mediation is reduced, external accountability mechanisms weaken, and the range of possible outcomes narrows. Control of framing precedes control of resolution.
Urgency Without Structural Clarity
You are correct in one respect: the moment is urgent. But urgency, when detached from structural clarity, can accelerate processes that lack the conditions necessary for durable peace.
When dialogue is initiated without addressing power asymmetry, process neutrality, and outcome openness, the result is often predictable: agreements without legitimacy, stability without trust, and closure without justice.Such outcomes do not resolve conflicts.They defer them
Justice Is Not a Reciprocal Gesture
At the heart of your proposal lies an implicit equation: that peace emerges from mutual concession. But not all elements of a conflict are negotiable. Justice is not a midpoint. Accountability is not a shared burden. Structural realities are not rhetorical positions. Any process that treats them as such risks producing settlement without resolution.
A Necessary Clarification of Process
There exists an alternative framework—one consistently articulated by the Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia. It does not reject dialogue. It defines its minimum conditions: neutral, internationally facilitated mediation; guarantees that no party predefines the outcome; and a process that reflects the political realities at the core of the conflict. This is not obstruction. It is the baseline requirement for credibility.
Conclusion: Naming the Consequence
Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa, your letter calls for peace. That objective is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the structure through which that peace is pursued. Because peace is not determined by intention. It is determined by process.
And processes that prioritize manageability over structural resolution produce a consistent outcome: A conflict that appears to stabilize—while remaining fundamentally unresolved. The question, therefore, is not whether dialogue should occur. It is whether the form of dialogue being proposed is capable of producing justice.
Because in conflicts of this nature: Peace that is engineered for balance will not hold. Only peace that is grounded in reality will endure.
Timothy Enongene Guest Editor-in-Chief The Independentist News
