Non-state armed actors in Africa are no longer merely disruptors—they are economic operators running sophisticated parallel economies. From small-scale resource extraction in conflict zones to transnational ransom networks, these groups control resource extraction, taxation systems, and trade routes that generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually. 

This phenomenon undermines state authority, fuels instability, and complicates conventional security responses. Non-state actors are agile, adaptive, and often transnational, exploiting gaps in governance, regulation, and regional coordination. Meanwhile, legitimate economic activity is disrupted, eroding development gains and leaving communities vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, and forced recruitment.

The conflict in Sudan is one of the most pressing crises facing Africa’s peace and security architecture. Beyond its humanitarian impact, it reflects deeper structural, political and governance challenges. It also exposes the fragility of political settlements not anchored in inclusivity.

Sudan’s strategic location at the intersection of the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, North Africa, and the Red Sea corridor makes the conflict a regional and continental concern. Instability has triggered cross-border displacement, disrupted trade and mobility corridors, accelerated arms proliferation and heightened geopolitical competition.

Sudan has also been central to the evolution of African peacekeeping. Since 2004, the country has hosted successive AU and AU–UN missions, positioning it as a critical case study of African structural constraints facing African-led peace operations.

African peacekeeping is among the most consequential yet persistently under-recognised pillars of global peace and security. From the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC, 1960–1964), which shaped early UN peacekeeping doctrine, to contemporary African-led counter-terrorism and stabilisation missions, the continent has repeatedly pioneered regional responses in contexts of limited or delayed international engagement.

These include ECOMOG interventions, AMIS in Darfur, AMISOM/ATMIS in Somalia, as well as the MNJTF and the G5 Sahel operations. Yet African peace operations are too often portrayed as temporary or second-best substitutes for UN or Western-led missions, rather than as deliberate expressions of strategic agency and shared global responsibility. This Panel seeks to reframe African peacekeeping as central – not peripheral to international security.

The sustainability of peace and security operations in Africa remains one of the continent’s most persistent strategic challenges. While African-led peace support operations have expanded in scope, complexity and political relevance, their financing has remained fragmented, unpredictable and heavily dependent on external support. This structural imbalance has constrained operational effectiveness, weakened accountability frameworks and limited the ability of African institutions to respond decisively to evolving security threats.

The adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2719 marked a significant shift in international approaches to financing African Union–led Peace Support Operations. By opening a pathway for the use of UN assessed contributions under clearly defined conditions, the resolution reflects growing recognition of Africa’s central role in managing its own peace and security challenges. At the same time, early implementation has revealed practical, political and institutional challenges that raise questions about feasibility, timelines and long-term sustainability.

As African conflicts grow more complex and resource-intensive, the evolution of Resolution 2719 presents both an opportunity and a test: whether international financing mechanisms can effectively support African-led security responses while navigating emerging implementation constraints without undermining ownership, accountability or strategic coherence.

Religious extremism in Africa has evolved into a multidimensional threat, blending ideology, insurgency, and transnational networks to destabilize states, exploit communities, and fund violent campaigns.

Extremist groups adapt rapidly, exploiting governance gaps, economic marginalization, and modern communication tools to recruit, radicalize, and coordinate attacks. These networks not only threaten security but also erode state legitimacy and economic development, creating cycles of instability that persist across borders.
Continental responses must move beyond purely military approaches to include governance, social cohesion, and regional coordination. Understanding the complex drivers of extremism, from economic, to political, and ideological, is essential to shaping effective, context-specific solutions.