Oslo’s silence speaks volumes. Whatever exploratory contacts may have taken place have not materialized into formal mediation. And this outcome should surprise no one who has followed the history of attempted conflict resolution in this crisis.
By Carl Sanders
Independentistnews Guest Writer, Soho, London
For months, diplomatic circles quietly speculated about renewed international facilitation efforts aimed at addressing the conflict between the Federal Republic of Ambazonia and La République du Cameroun (LRC). Norway was mentioned as a possible facilitator, raising cautious hope among observers who have watched the conflict grind on with devastating humanitarian consequences.
Yet today, Oslo’s silence speaks volumes. Whatever exploratory contacts may have taken place have not materialized into formal mediation. And this outcome should surprise no one who has followed the history of attempted conflict resolution in this crisis.
The lesson is not about Norway. It is about the persistent failure of mediation efforts when one party approaches talks as a tactical pause rather than a path to resolution.
A Familiar Diplomatic Pattern
This is not the first time international engagement has stalled. Over the past several years, multiple mediation efforts—public and private—have struggled to gain traction. Each time, optimism briefly rises, only to fade as negotiations stall or collapse.
The pattern is by now familiar: International actors signal willingness to facilitate dialogue.
Diplomatic announcements raise expectations of progress. Initial contacts occur. Then discussions stall when core political questions surface.
The result is diplomatic fatigue and growing skepticism among international partners who hesitate to invest political capital in processes unlikely to produce meaningful outcomes.
Lessons from the Swiss and Canadian Attempts
The Swiss-led facilitation effort once raised hopes of structured dialogue. However, disagreements over representation, negotiation frameworks, and internal divisions among stakeholders weakened momentum. Observers noted that mistrust between parties and competing interests ultimately undermined progress, leaving the initiative unable to move beyond preliminary stages.
Similarly, the Canadian announcement in 2023 generated expectations of renewed talks. Yet the process quickly became mired in controversy, with disputes emerging over agenda control and participation. The episode exposed deep disagreements about negotiation terms and raised concerns among supporters that dialogue efforts were being used tactically rather than substantively.
At the time, controversy surrounding attempts to politically corner key Ambazonian leadership figures—including moves widely perceived by supporters as attempts to pressure or sideline recognized representatives—led to renewed scrutiny of the negotiation framework itself. As discussions unfolded, many within diaspora communities concluded that the agenda being promoted did not adequately address core political questions, further eroding confidence in the process. In both cases, optimism gave way to familiar stalemate once negotiations approached substantive political issues.
The Core Obstacle: Avoiding the Root Question
At the heart of repeated mediation failures lies an unresolved issue: the political status and future governance of the territory at the center of the conflict.
Facilitators cannot succeed if talks are limited to ceasefires or decentralization measures while avoiding the underlying political dispute. Conflict resolution processes around the world—from Northern Ireland to South Sudan—demonstrate that durable peace requires confronting root causes, however uncomfortable. When discussions avoid the fundamental question, talks become exercises in delay rather than vehicles for settlement. International mediators quickly recognize when negotiations are being used to manage optics rather than pursue solutions.
Mediation Requires Credible Engagement from All Sides
Successful mediation depends on several basic conditions: First, facilitators must engage representatives capable of negotiating on behalf of their constituencies. Second, discussions must take place in environments where participants can negotiate freely and securely. Third, agreements must be backed by credible international guarantees. And finally, negotiations must be permitted to address substantive political questions rather than procedural distractions. Without these elements, mediation becomes symbolic rather than transformative.
Why External Actors Step Back
Countries like Norway, Switzerland, and Canada have long traditions of conflict mediation. But experienced mediators also know when conditions are not ripe for meaningful dialogue.
When parties appear unwilling or unable to move beyond tactical positioning, facilitators often reduce their engagement quietly rather than risk lending legitimacy to processes unlikely to succeed.
Diplomatic withdrawal is rarely dramatic. It usually occurs through silence, postponed meetings, or the absence of follow-up initiatives. The result is what observers now see: a quiet pause rather than a diplomatic breakthrough.
The Responsibility Ultimately Lies with the Parties
No foreign government can impose peace where political will is absent. External actors may facilitate dialogue, but lasting solutions must ultimately emerge from the parties to the conflict themselves.
History repeatedly shows that sovereignty and political settlement are secured not by diplomatic shortcuts, but through internal political organization, resilience, and sustained negotiation grounded in reality.
For communities affected by the conflict, this is a sobering reminder: progress will not come through rumors of foreign interventions or diplomatic miracles.
Conclusion: Strength Comes from Internal Clarity
As the March 19 verdict for the Nera 10 approaches, attention naturally turns to international reactions and diplomatic possibilities. Yet lasting progress will depend less on external mediators and more on internal clarity, unity, and strategic discipline.
Foreign facilitators may assist when conditions mature, but they cannot substitute for the political cohesion and institutional strength required to achieve durable outcomes.
Diplomacy can open doors, but only prepared parties can walk through them. The struggle continues—but history reminds us that endurance, organization, and clarity remain the decisive forces in any movement seeking lasting resolution.
Carl Sanders
Independentistnews Guest Writer, Soho, London
