The Central African Republic has been a place where long memories of violence and the fragile hope of peace have existed side by side for decades. In recent months that fragile balance has been tested again by a fresh surge of armed attacks and communal tensions that have driven people from their homes, shattered livelihoods and once more drawn the attention and concern of the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. What is striking about this latest deterioration is not only the speed with which violence has flared in parts of the southeast, but the character of the attacks — targeted, brutal, and often aimed at civilians who were already among the most vulnerable: pastoralists, minority communities, refugees and internally displaced people. Those on the ground talk about a return to patterns of cruelty that had been hoped to be behind the country, and UN reports have documented summary executions, widespread sexual violence, looting, forced labour and other grave abuses that together amount to a severe crisis of protection for ordinary people.
To understand the present escalation it helps to return to the country’s structural weaknesses. The Central African Republic’s state institutions have long been thinly spread across a vast and sparsely populated territory. Roads, telecommunication networks and health and education systems are weak or non-existent in many prefectures, and the national security forces have limited reach outside a few centres. Over the last two decades this vacuum has been exploited by a succession of armed groups whose shifting alliances and rivalries have repeatedly drawn lines of violence across the map. Into that pattern the country has absorbed new pressures: the spillover of instability from neighbouring countries, movements of herders and pastoralists in search of grazing, competition over land and resources, and the proliferation of small arms. That context has rendered entire regions, particularly in the southeast, vulnerable to sudden and destructive outbreaks of fighting.
The recent wave of attacks that alarmed the UN began to concentrate in the prefectures of Mbomou and Haut-Mbomou, in the southeast. Investigations by the UN human rights office and the UN peacekeeping mission in the country disclosed two particularly brutal rounds of violence in late 2024 and early 2025, where communities were singled out and targeted. In these incidents armed elements — in some cases belonging to militia groupings with ties to other formations in the country — carried out killings, public executions, and systematic sexual violence. Refugee camps that had been hosting Sudanese and other asylum seekers were not spared. In towns such as Dembia, Rafaï and near Mboki, the reports point to chilling scenes: people summarily executed, others tied up and thrown into rivers, attacks on women and girls, homes burned, and entire communities driven from what little shelter they had. The cumulative effect was immediate displacement and a deepening climate of fear that has reverberated well beyond the towns directly attacked.
A worrying aspect of these operations is the alleged involvement, or the existence of links, between certain armed groups and elements within the national security apparatus. The UN findings referenced groups such as Wagner Ti Azandé (WTA) and others that had origins or connections with local militias, and raised troubling questions about whether fighters operating with informal or quasi-official backing carried out crimes with impunity. Where armed actors are perceived as enjoying protection or informal endorsement, the incentives for violence and reprisal grow, and local grievances that might otherwise be mediated through community channels instead turn into cycles of vengeance. The UN and other human rights actors have been explicit in calling for full clarification of these ties, transparent investigations and accountability; without that, the risk is that impunity will become normalized, and that hard-won trust between communities and state or international actors will be eroded.
The humanitarian consequences are enormous. Prior to these new attacks, the Central African Republic already faced deep needs: a large proportion of its population is food insecure, a significant share depends on humanitarian assistance, and millions live as internally displaced persons or refugees in neighbouring countries. The fresh violence has triggered new movements of people—thousands in some localised incidents—who have fled to churches, makeshift camps and towns where overstretched humanitarian agencies try to provide food, water, shelter and medical care. The southeast, where fighting has intensified, is characterized by extremely limited access for aid agencies because of insecurity and poor communications, which compounds the suffering. When aid convoys cannot move, immunization and nutrition programs are interrupted, clinics close or operate at minimal capacity, and families are forced to survive on dwindling reserves. Humanitarian coordinators at the UN have repeatedly warned that if the violence is not checked, what begins as a protection crisis could quickly morph into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe with long-term consequences for children, women and the elderly.
There are several drivers behind why violence has flared now. One is competition over land and resources that has intensified with changing climatic patterns and population movements. Pastoralist communities such as the Fulani have long moved across borders and internal frontiers with their herds; when those movements collide with sedentary agricultural communities, disputes over pasture and water can escalate into armed confrontations, especially where state authority is weak. Another driver is the regional context: conflicts and upheavals in neighbouring Sudan and Chad have added pressure on border areas, as refugees arrive and armed groups exploit porous borders or recruit displaced youth. A third driver is the fragmentation and commercialization of violence: armed groups often finance themselves through extortion, illegal mining, poaching of natural resources and other illicit economies, which encourages the perpetuation of conflict rather than its resolution. Finally, politics at the national level—competition for control, the co-optation of armed actors into political deals without adequate demobilization, and fragile reform of security institutions—creates openings for spoilers who profit from instability. These dynamics combine to create a volatile mix in which a single attack can set off a chain reaction of reprisals and further atrocities.
Beyond the immediate drivers, the human rights dimension of the violence demands close attention. Reports document not only killings and displacement but also systematic abuses against civilians: sexual violence used as a weapon of war, detention and torture, forced labour, and summary executions. Children have been recruited and used by armed actors, schools have been attacked and the psychological scars will be long-lasting. The UN’s human rights office has emphasized the need to document violations carefully so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice. Moreover, survivors require not just emergency assistance but long-term support: medical care for injuries, psychosocial support for trauma, legal assistance, and programs to reintegrate children and combat the impunity that perpetuates violence. Without an integrated approach, the short-term relief provided by humanitarian actors risks slipping back into a longer-term pattern of cyclical vulnerability.
The United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) continues to be a critical actor on the ground. In places where the mission has deployed patrols or set up temporary bases, some communities have found a measure of protection, and the presence of UN personnel can reduce the frequency of blatant mass atrocities. Since mid-2025, MINUSCA has reported efforts to reinforce its protection posture and to support the disarmament and demobilization of combatants in pockets of the country, with several hundred fighters processed through programmes aimed at reducing the capacity of armed groups to wage attacks. Yet MINUSCA faces limits: logistical constraints, funding pressures, the sheer scale of the territory and the multiplicity of armed actors all reduce its ability to be everywhere at once. The Security Council and UN headquarters have debated resources, mandates and the future shape of the mission, mindful that peacekeepers can protect civilians but cannot substitute for a functioning national security sector and credible justice mechanisms.
The government of the Central African Republic has taken steps to respond in certain cases—arresting suspected perpetrators, proposing judicial mechanisms in affected areas, and speaking of deployments to restore order—but it struggles to project authority consistently and to offer the kind of impartial, rule-based response that builds public trust. In some instances, arrests have been made; in others, allegations of collusion or of insufficient investigations have led to skepticism among local communities and human rights monitors. For transitional justice to be meaningful, it must be credible and seen as independent. Establishing special courts or tribunals can help, but only if they are adequately resourced, adhere to fair trial standards and are accessible to affected populations. Otherwise, such initiatives risk being perceived as symbolic and may do little to deter future abuses.
Regional diplomacy and the role of neighbouring states are also central to any prospect of containment or resolution. The CAR is not isolated: its fate is intertwined with that of Chad, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other neighbours. Cross-border dynamics—trade, pastoralist routes, refugee flows and the movement of armed groups—mean that any sustainable solution must include regional cooperation on security, intelligence sharing, border management and humanitarian coordination. International actors have periodically convened regional dialogues intended to reduce cross-border tensions and foster cooperative responses to violence, but these processes require sustained political will and resources. Without them, armed groups and illicit networks can exploit gaps between national jurisdictions to sustain their operations.
Humanitarian agencies operating in the Central African Republic confront acute operational challenges. Security constraints impede access to the most affected populations, communications blackouts and damaged roads make logistics costly or impossible, and funding shortfalls force agencies to prioritise needs and sometimes reduce assistance levels. Even when aid reaches displaced people, the services available are often basic and insufficient: shelter made of tarpaulins and sticks, limited clean water, sporadic food distributions and overstretched clinics. Protection concerns are pervasive; displaced women and girls face heightened risks of sexual violence, children miss out on education and health screening, and the elderly and those with disabilities are frequently left behind. Agencies have been calling for scaled-up funding and better safeguards for humanitarian access, arguing that time-limited humanitarian stops cannot substitute for a political solution that addresses root causes.
The international community has a range of tools at its disposal, but each comes with limitations and political trade-offs. Peacekeepers can provide short- to medium-term protection and help create space for dialogue, but they cannot permanently substitute for domestic governance. Sanctions, targeted against individuals who profit from violence, can signal international resolve and complicate impunity, but they are most effective when accompanied by strong investigative work and regional cooperation to enforce them. Support for security sector reform and for judicial and penal institutions can build long-term capacity to prevent future abuses, but such efforts require significant investment and time. Humanitarian aid mitigates suffering immediately yet can become another temporary bandage if it does not link to longer-term recovery, livelihoods and reconciliation programs that reduce vulnerability to recruitment by armed groups. All of this underscores that piecemeal responses are inadequate: a coherent strategy that combines protection, accountability, governance reforms and development is needed.
There are, however, realistic pathways to reduce violence and begin to rebuild social cohesion. First, strengthening local early-warning systems and community-based conflict resolution mechanisms can prevent small disputes from spiralling into armed clashes. Local leaders, women’s groups, youth organizations and faith communities often have credibility and the capacity to mediate, provided they are supported and included by national and international actors. Second, credible accountability is essential: impartial investigations, judicial follow-through and reparations for victims can deter future crimes and begin the slow work of restoring trust. Third, economic recovery and livelihoods support—especially for displaced people and young men who might otherwise be vulnerable to recruitment—can reduce the allure of joining armed groups. Fourth, security sector reform that professionalizes and diversifies national forces, with oversight and human rights training, helps create an impartial shield for civilians rather than an instrument of predation. Finally, genuine regional engagement, integrating development, security and migration policies, can address the cross-border dynamics that fuel insecurity. None of these steps is easy, but together they form a sensible roadmap.
The voices of survivors and community members must also shape any response. People displaced by the attacks express needs that are both immediate and long-term: safe shelter, food, medical care, legal recognition, compensation for lost property, and opportunities for their children to access schooling. Women emphasize the need for services that address sexual and gender-based violence, including confidential medical care and psychosocial support. Children who have been forcibly recruited need special reintegration programs that include education, vocational training and family reunification where possible. Frequently, international and national actors design programs based on macro assessments without sufficient consultation with those directly affected; reversing that pattern would make interventions more relevant and effective. The UN and humanitarian partners have repeatedly called for participatory approaches in planning and implementing assistance, and for the inclusion of marginalized groups in decision-making processes.
Another critical dimension is information and narrative. In conflict settings, misinformation and inflammatory rumours can spread quickly, exacerbated by poor communications and social media where available. That can inflame intercommunal tensions and prompt reprisals. Supporting reliable local journalism, community radio and trusted information channels can help counter falsehoods and provide communities with verified news about security, humanitarian assistance and reconciliation measures. International actors often underestimate the power of trusted local communication; investing in it can reduce panic-driven displacement and create openings for dialogue.
At the diplomatic level, the UN Security Council, regional organizations and bilateral partners have a role to play in keeping the situation on the international agenda and in aligning support to the government in ways that promote accountability and protection rather than entrenching patronage networks. Recent Security Council briefings and reports have underscored the need for both immediate protection measures and long-term structural reforms, while flagging resource gaps and the difficulties of balancing robust peacekeeping mandates with political realities at home. External actors must be cautious not to amplify local tensions with ill-calibrated support to any armed formation and instead prioritize measures that reinforce the rule of law and civilian protection.
The human costs of inaction are clear and immediate. Children disappear from school routines and lose access to vaccinations; adults who once eked out a living from farming or trade find markets destroyed or inaccessible; health clinics struggle to provide maternal care; families live with the daily fear of attack or forced displacement. The country’s social fabric—already frayed by years of conflict—risks rupturing further if communities perceive that justice is denied and protection is partial. That social rupture is not only tragic in human terms; it also undermines the prospects for economic recovery and the very possibility of a durable peace. Conversely, visible progress on protection, justice and services can create a virtuous cycle: people feel less exposed and more invested in peace, local economies recover, and confidence in institutions slowly returns.
It is worth acknowledging the complexity of crafting durable solutions. Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programs have had mixed results in the CAR and elsewhere. Unless fighter reintegration is accompanied by realistic livelihood alternatives and community reconciliation, ex-combatants can relapse into violence. Similarly, building a capable, rights-respecting security sector requires time, training, vetting and sustained international support that is sometimes politically difficult to maintain. Yet the alternative—accepting cycles of violence punctuated by temporary fixes—locks the country into perpetual emergency mode. The challenge for donors and policymakers is to balance urgent humanitarian responses with patient investments in systems that reduce the structural incentives for violence.
Finally, the Central African Republic’s crisis is a test of global norms about protecting civilians and upholding human rights in fragile contexts. When the international community hears of summary executions, sexual violence and mass displacement, the moral and legal obligation to respond is clear. But translating that obligation into effective actions—safeguarding aid delivery, ensuring credible investigations, strengthening judicial capacity and supporting inclusive governance—requires coordination, political will and patience. The people of the CAR deserve a sustained response that goes beyond headlines and fits the scale of their suffering: robust protection on the ground, accountability for perpetrators, meaningful assistance for survivors and investments that rebuild the institutions that make peace possible. The UN and its partners have repeatedly articulated these priorities; the current uptick in violence is a sobering reminder that words must be matched by resources and resolute action if the cycle of violence is to be broken.
In the end, the future of the Central African Republic hinges on choices made by local leaders, regional partners and the international community. Support that is principled, coordinated and sustained can reduce immediate suffering and lay the groundwork for recovery. Neglect, short-termism or policies that reward armed predation will only deepen the wounds. For the men and women who woke up one morning to find their village burned, for the children who can no longer attend school, and for the mothers who carry scars that may never fully heal, the hope is simple: that the world will not look away, that justice will be pursued, and that peace will be given a real chance to take hold. The UN’s concern is more than rhetoric; it is a call to action rooted in the urgency of human suffering and the knowledge that, with the right mix of protection, accountability and development, a different path is possible.
0 Comments