DECRYPTION OF THE CRISIS IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH WEST REGIONS OF CAMEROON.

Since the wars of Independence, Africa has been ravaged with myriads of wars, emerging in different forms, particular characteristics but usually with one aim; that of the control of polity. After the fall of the Berlin wall marking the end of an ideological conflict opposing capitalist west and communist East, the wave of this sudden and brutal change sow its seeds in Africa. With the introduction of democracy, capitalism and Human rights, the Ubuntu nature of the continent changed as well. We moved from a community based approach to an individualistic approach as portrayed in the western world. Hence, individualist gains dominated as opposed to the general good. Thus, the mutation in the nature of conflicts, from the wars of liberation, wars of independence to coup d’états, Ethnic wars, wars of identity and terrorism. Out of 54 African states, over 40 have experienced coups, an estimated 25 for ethnic wars and currently 15 are at war. The African continent has been highly susceptible to intra and inter-state wars and conflicts. This has prompted the insinuation that Africa is the home of wars and conflict. No country has been spared throughout its history and less more Cameroon, which is the bone of contention of this paper.

The North West and South west regions of Cameroon have experienced a surge in conflict since 2016. Popularly known as the “Anglophone crisis”, firstly because it is taking place in the English speaking regions of the country and secondly because it is staged by a request from the English minority demanding an equitable judiciary representation of both official languages in the law systems. But why term it the Anglophone crisis? Is it an identity? One of the principal cause for conflicts in Africa, or is the term used to geographically situate someone? One is part of those who fervently believes this crisis shouldn’t be termed at such. But a question constantly arises, who is an Anglophone? And who is a Francophone? This question can hardly be answered objectively by citizens of the Africa in miniature country. Literally, an Anglophone is someone who speaks English and a Francophone, someone who speaks French. These terms however have a more complex definition in the Cameroonian context. Prior to gaining independence in 1960 and 1961, Cameroon was governed as a mandated territory of the United Nations under the auspices of Britain and France. The country was divided under the picot line of partition, with about 1/5 of the national territory administered by Britain now representing the north west and south west regions, and the remaining 4/5 administered by France representing the remaining eight regions of the country. At such, an “Anglophone” is someone who originates from that part of the country, thus under the British mandate and a “francophone” someone who originates from any of the eight French speaking regions. What then are the causes of this unending war? How far have they weakened cohesion, unity and the potential development of Cameroon? What can we do to overcome this monster? Our analysis of the conflict will be structured in five parts: Causal analysis, spatial analysis, historical analysis, strategic analysis and analysis of perspectives.

Many people foreign to the crisis will estimate that it is a recent event which debuted in 2016 or later in 2017. The immediate cause of the crisis in the North and South West regions of Cameroon however is situated around late October 2016 when lawyers went down the streets to request for a better accommodation of the common law system and the French law in their respective milieu. The series of sectorial grievances morphed into political demands, leading to strikes and riots. The current crisis is a particularly worrying resurgence of an old problem. Never before has tension around the Anglophone issue been so acute. The mobilization of lawyers, teachers and students starting in October 2016, ignored then put down by the government, has revived identity-based movements which date back to the 1970s. These movements are demanding a return to the federal model that existed from 1961 to 1972. Trust between Anglophone activists and the government has been undermined by the arrest of the movement’s leading figures and the cutting of the internet, both in January 2017. Since then, the two Anglophone regions have lived through general strikes, school boycotts and sporadic violence. (International Crisis group)

But why is the crisis taking place only in those two regions, despite the hardships experienced by all regions? Numerous theories have emerged as elements of response to this question: political, economic or geopolitical. While some have it that, it is because of the long history that marked the coexistence between the English minority and the Central government of the French majority. A history and coexistence marked by distrust, unfair play and domination to the detriment of the 20% composite of the national populace which constitutes the Anglophones. Another theory, which appears to be more of a conspiracy’s theory have it that, the crisis in the north and south west regions are motivated by the strategic and symbolic minerals found there. Prior to the crisis, the World Bank funded an expedition (Projet de renforcement des capacités dans le secteur minier- Precasem) into the discovery and rediscovery of the soils of some African countries, of which Cameroon was part of. From 2014 to 2019, out of this expedition, it came out that, Cameroon had over 300 new mineral mines across the ten regions of the country. Some of these minerals include but not limited to Sapphire, zinc, rare earth, uranium, gold, diamond, tin, graphite, colbalt, nickel and manganese. With some of these minerals found in the North West and South West regions, such as Gold and diamond in Misaje and Mamfe respectively (CAPAM- Mining arm of the Cameroon government discovery) and Cobalt and Uranium, they may be the motivation by both national and international actors in partaking in the on-going crisis.

To appreciate the dynamics of the current political crisis, it is necessary to know the genesis of the Anglophone crisis which goes as far back as the days of independence. As earlier mentioned, Cameroon was administered by France and Britain before gaining independence in 1960 and 1961 respectively. The British administered Southern Cameroon had voted to join French administered- la Republic du Cameroon through the United Nation organized plebiscite in February 1961 entering into a two state federation of West and East Cameroon respectively. In 1972 however after the Foumban conference, former president Ahmadou Ahidjo altered the structure of the union by abandoning federalism and transforming the country into a unitary state known as “United Republic of Cameroon”. His successor president Paul Biya further changed it to “La Republic du Cameroon”, which was initially the name of East Cameroon at the time of Independence. This change has been interpreted by some Anglophone elites as an act of secession and domination. Thus the erosion of their unique identity has lingered since 1972 before erupting in 2016, through what was popularly known as the Lawyer match. Fast forward, events ghastly mutated with the regions plunging into a devastating civil war, first with riots and strikes, kidnapping and hijacks, and then guerrilla wars and confrontations between arm militias known as “Amba boys” and the state military.

But who are the actors involved in this conflict and why? The camp of belligerent is divided into two known major camps, the government on the one hand with very little international support and backup, and on the other side Ambazonian fighters, backed up by the diaspora and national activists. A third faction has emerged suspected of regrouping foreign militias trying to reap from the thorns of war, popularly known as Conflict entrepreneurs. Both camps however are in the search of different objectives, with the government seeking to ensure national security, preserve national unity and affirm its sovereignty, both politically and economically on the first hand, and on the other, a fraction of regrouped arm youths known as “Amba boys” requesting for the immediate independence of the English speaking regions, and national activists seeking for the restoration of the two federated state as per the past. Despite these known grievances and objectives, the third fraction makes it difficult to propose sustainable perspectives. This has led to the emergence of important questioning such as: With whom should the government dialogue with? But why is the crisis persisting despite the wish of non-violence? Who are those fueling the violence? These questioning shows us the complex nature to which the crisis has arrived at.

Many solutions to bring about an end to this has however been proposed. Firstly, the National Dialogue organized between the end of September and early October 2019 under the auspices of the head of state. Major resolutions were adopted and a special status granted to the aforementioned regions. Also, the Vatican, Switzerland and Nigeria have suggested or brought about a contribution in one way or the other in the restoration of peace. Nevertheless, these efforts seem to be insufficient for a return to normalcy. This pushes one to reflect further. What if the real reasons for the persistence in violence and the non-adhesion of peace enacted measures were due to conflict entrepreneurs? What if the solution is found in the joined combat of the indigents, local and central government to form a coalition against external belligerents? That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but nonetheless legit. Furthermore, the establishment of federalism may go a long way to lay the foundations for a more sustainable peace. In such conflicts, reconciliation after peacemaking is very vital to avoid conflict from recurring due to past grievances. Questions of substance must be answered, crimes must be acknowledged and punished if need be. In summary, there are three mechanisms to follow: joined action- Federalism and reconciliation. These wouldn’t be an easy task to accomplish however, due to the complexity of our independence and weak institutions. It is therefore very vital that every citizen takes upon himself the mission to contribute to Peace-building. Before everything else, Cameroon was one nation before the arrival of colonialism. This part of history is usually left out, which normally should constitute the backbone of our unity. There are more differences between someone from the south west and someone from the northwest compared to one from the littoral. The question on the language spoken shouldn’t be a point of divergence, but rather complementary to our diversity.

References

1)     Daniel Abwa: Ni Anglophones, ni Francophones au cameroun: tous des camerounais, les Editions de Kilimanjaro, 2015.

2)     Aremu Johnson Oloasebikan, Conflicts in Africa: Meaning, causes, Impact and solutions, in African research review, page 549-560.

3)     Angele Manka Tita, Muammer Kaya: Minerals in Cameroon, in Researchgate, may 2020.

4)     Bouopda Pierre Kame: The Anglophone crisis in Camerron, Etudes Africaines l’Harmattan, june 2018.

5)     Enow Botela Enow: The Advanced level history pathfinder, Revised Edition, Nabesk comprehensive college, Buea 2011.