'Pardon my English' - Cameroon's Overlooked Anglophone Crisis

By Joakim Mol Romero

Although the English and French have historically loved a quarrel, the long peace that has existed between the nations can be seen in the free exchange of words from one language to another. Without taking this article on too much of a detour, many of the premier words in the English language derive from across the channel, giving it a joie de vivre it might otherwise lack. However, in other parts of the world where these nations have left cultural and linguistic imprints, tensions between the languages are an altogether more concerning affair. 

It is well established that the borders drawn by European colonial powers (especially at the infamous Berlin Conference of the 1880s) have led to devastating conflict in the present day.  The aspiring colonists showed blatant disregard for previously existing nations and groupings. This meant that when these nations gained independence, it was inevitable that these ethnic, religious and linguistic tensions would rear their ugly head. The latter has been of particular import in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon, as language divisions have threatened to descend into full-blown civil war, uprooting millions of lives in the process.

The Northwest and Southwest regions, also referred to as the NoSo regions, differ from the rest of Cameroon in that their primary language is English, in a country where the French language dominates. This has led to the formation of a unique cultural identity, yet throughout the modern history of independent Cameroon, the regions’ autonomy has been steadily eroded. The name of the regions have subsequently become a point of contention which persists to this day, with local activists preferring to refer to the area as Ambazonia. This term was coined in 1984 as part of a campaign for the restoration of autonomy, which has now expanded to demands for full-blown independence. To understand why Ambazonians’ grievances have reached the point of clamouring for separation from Cameroon, a brief understanding of its modern history is needed.

At the aforementioned Berlin Conference Germany was granted Cameroon, but after World War One, it was seized by France and Britain. The simultaneous existence of British and French Cameroons cemented language divisions. Both Cameroons gained independence within a year of one another, with the formerly British Southern Cameroons voting to join the already independent Republic of Cameroon in 1961. However, the referendum that led to this decision is seen as illegitimate to this day by many Anglophone Cameroonians. 

At first, it seemed as if Anglophones would be welcomed with open arms in the unified republic, with Prime Minister John Ngu Foncha being elected as an English speaker. Despite this, the conditions of English-speakers consistently deteriorated in the ensuing decades. President Ahmadou Ahidjo began centralising the state’s power, as Anglophone influence over the nation’s politics decreased.

The severity of the plight of the Anglophone population has only become more pronounced under dictator Paul Biya, who has been in charge of the West African country since 1982. He had previously been elected as Prime Minister in 1975, giving him third place on the dubious list of the longest serving world leaders. Unfortunately, both of the men in front of him are comparative spring chickens in relation to Mr Biya’s 92 years of age, making the prospect of a gold medal in longevity unlikely.

Mr Biya has demonstrated a frankly staggeringly insatiable lust for power, which has unsurprisingly not been achieved without significant repression. Rather than engaging with groups which emerged to highlight the predicament of the Anglophones in the 1990s, his government cracked down on elements of decentralisation. He mostly succeeded in denying a voice to the increasingly powerless Northwest and Southwest regions. Nevertheless, tensions around the treatment of Cameroon’s Anglophones resurfaced in 2016, when protests erupted after French-speaking teachers and judges were appointed in the Anglophone regions. These protests reflected anxieties around the future prospects of the English language. Some of them turned deadly, leading to calls for investigations into the actions of the security forces.

In the absence of legitimate ways of expressing their anger at the decreasing autonomy of their communities, it did not take long for protesters’ grievances to take on a violent aspect, as armed groups formed to take the struggle to the government. This was followed by the declaration of independence of the Ambazonia region, an as yet symbolic move which has not been recognised by any other countries. Since then, separatist rebels have engaged in guerilla warfare with the government. They have received support from a large proportion of the local population, especially in rural areas. Nevertheless, the rebel movement has been plagued by infighting which has prevented it from presenting a united front against the government, which has designated groups such as the Ambazonia Defense Forces ‘terrorists’.

Matters are complicated by reprehensible atrocities that have been committed by both sides. As demonstrated by an Amnesty report detailing harrowing human rights violations in Cameroon, there is no cut and dry good guy in this tale. The rebels may be representing an oppressed people, but they have discarded much of this good will by utilizing child soldiers and using violence against civilians. Equally concerning has been the blatant disregard for human rights shown by the Cameroonian army, which stands accused of perpetrating unlawful killings and sexual violence. These actions should be a cause for utmost concern and provide the impetus for serious peace talks, the continued failure of which comes with an intolerable human cost. Currently, schoolchildren are not able to attend class without fear of being attacked, and half a million Cameroonians have been internally displaced.

The international community’s response to the ongoing crisis has largely muted, with attention seemingly elsewhere. Influential organisations such as the UN Security Council have barely given it the light of day it so urgently requires, demonstrated by the fact it has only had one meeting to discuss the Anglophone Crisis. Admittedly, this is a status quo Paul Biya is perfectly content with, as he rejects outside intervention in his country’s affairs. Yet, when so many lives are at risk and his government has shown a total inability to come to a settlement, outside pressure is needed to encourage a return to normality. 

To date, Paul Biya’s most significant concession was the convening of the so-called Major National Dialogue in 2019, the purpose of which was to chart a path towards lasting peace. Yet, intervening time has shown the event to have been an abject failure. Although the NoSo regions were granted a special status during the conference, little material change was felt on the ground. The long-term solution to the conflict likely lies in a settlement which grants greater autonomy to Ambazonia, but this must involve consultation with Anglophone leaders, which is partially why the dialogue is viewed with derision by many Cameroonians.

Canadian and Swiss initiatives have attempted to bring an end to the conflict but neither succeeded, with both sides adhering steadfastly to their demands. The government refuses to accept any federalisation of the state which would reduce their power and the rebels are only willing to accept the full independence of Ambazonia.

The UK has put out numerous statements condemning the violence in Anglophone Regions,  but firmer action is needed to prevent future atrocities, especially in light of arms shipments to the nation still continuing. English-speaking Cameroonians naturally look to the UK for support, and Starmer’s government would do well to attempt to discourage France’s continuing support for Paul Biya. 

France currently functions as an enabler to Biya’s regime and has profound geopolitical and economic reasons for doing so. It views Cameroon crucial partner in fighting Islamic insurgents in the Sahel region. Additionally, France benefits from trade for Cameroonian minerals, the majority of which lie in the Anglophone regions, making a possible Ambozonian independence particularly damaging. Nevertheless, it beggars belief that France can stand so firmly against Russian aggression in its own continent, while turning a blind eye to other hugely damaging situations elsewhere. It may view Cameroon as a bulwark against Islamic extremism, but in doing so it merely seeks to counteract one kind of repression by tolerating another.

A number of factors have also led to Ambazonia being largely ignored by international media. The complexity and moral ambiguity of the sides in the conflict make it less appealing, and restrictions on media reporting limit opportunities for independent reporting. It is naïve to imagine an increase in media exposure directly leading any sort of resolution to the ongoing violence.

But I believe the glaring absence of coverage of the goings-on in Cameroon to be symptomatic of a more general apathy among the political class as regards conflicts in Africa. Yet, in this particular case, caring about the violence should not be a choice, but rather an imperative, given Britain and France’s historical roles in the creation of a multi-lingual Cameroonian state. Without an end to this protracted conflict, ordinary Cameroonians will continued to have their livelihoods upended.

Image: Flickr