 |
| From simple protest to where we are today. But how did we get there? |
Fighting is gradually coming
to a halt between security forces and militants from Cameroon’s
English-speaking minority. The government has called for a National
Dialogue, while armed militants appear inclined to continue fighting.
The Church is seen here as the only source of hope and solace and
could thus be an arbitrator in the current crisis.
Why does it matter?Other
than the Church, there are few prospective peacemakers. If no one
fills that role, the separatist sentiment already voiced by many
Anglophones will continue to grow, fuelling further violence and
exacerbating the ongoing insurgency in the Anglophone regions, with
Municipal and Parliamentary elections in early 2020 standing at the
horizon.
What should be done?The
Church should bridge its divides and state its impartiality on the
thorniest question facing Anglophone regions – federalism versus
decentralisation. A clergy able to project a position of neutrality
could work with other trusted actors to mediate between Anglophone
leaders and the state, and stem a dangerous and growing crisis.
I. OVERVIEW
Cameroon’s Anglophone
crisis, which began in October 2016, has metamorphosed into conflict
between security forces and increasingly well-armed separatists
fighting in the name of the country’s marginalised English-speaking
minority. The separatist impulse among Anglophones is growing as
President Paul Biya’s government shrugs off the community’s
historical grievances. Violence has spread: more than 2000 civilians
and members of the security forces have reportedly died in the past
three years.
Some evidence suggests that
separatists control territory; 34,000 refugees are sheltering in
precarious conditions in Nigeria and about 40,000 persons are
displaced in the Southwest Anglophone region. Many militants
apparently believe they are better served by fighting in order to
negotiate with Biya’s government from a position of strength. The
African Union and Western powers have called for dialogue. The
government agrees on the need for talks, but refuses Anglophone
activists’ calls for outside mediation and opposes any discussion
of federalism. It has jailed Anglophone leaders with whom it was
formerly talking.
 |
| Security operatives patrolling in the streets of Buea. |
The Church could help break
this dangerous stalemate. Present in all ten of Cameroon’s regions,
the Church is one of the country’s strongest institutions. Almost
three quarter of Cameroonians are christians and the Church operates
a dense network of schools and hospitals. Cameroonians take its views
seriously. At present, however, its public divisions, particularly
between Anglophone and Francophone Servants of God, stand in the way
of it playing a constructive role. It is not too late for the Church
to bridge these divides. Anglophone and Francophone ministers of God
should come together in a public statement to affirm their neutrality
on the issue most contentious in the crisis – that of federalism
versus decentralisation – and state their willingness to mediate.
The Church also should
renew its calls for an end to violence and for Anglophone leaders and
the government to enter negotiations. Given that, for now, direct
talks between the two sides appear unlikely, the Church, if it is
able to project neutrality and win trust on both sides, might play a
behind-the-scenes role to allow for indirect communication between
them. It could usefully push for prisoner release and some form of
amnesty for Anglophone leaders who have fled the country, both likely
prerequisites for talks. It could continue working together with
other religious institutions. The Presbyterian Church in Cameroon,
for instance, stated in January 2017 , its readiness to mediate, and
the Cameroon Baptist Convention, as well as credible civil society
associations and traditional rulers. As violence appears set to
escalate, particularly ahead of Cameroon’s 2020 Municipal and
Parliamentary elections, potential mediators and peacemakers are few.
The Church should overcome its divisions, position itself as a
neutral arbiter and help resolve an increasingly deadly and worrisome
crisis.
" The Church has
established itself as a leading actor in Cameroon’s politics, but
[internal] divisions continue to undermine its potential to play a
positive role. "
II. The Church in the
Anglophone Crisis
Two issues related to the
crisis are particularly divisive among Church leaders and christians.
The first concerns the structure of the state, namely whether to
advocate for decentralisation, federalism or even independence for a
new Anglophone state. The vast majority supports decentralisation
within a unified state.
" Some Anglophone
Ministers of God have gone so far as to call for the creation of a
new state. "
In contrast, some Anglophone
priests have gone so far as to call for the creation of a new state.
In April 2017, for instance, Father Wilfred Emeh of the Kumba diocese
called for the restoration of the statehood of Southern Cameroons (he
proposed federalism as a step toward achieving independence). The
next month, Father Gerald of the Kumbo diocese wrote an open letter
to Archbishop Kleda supporting full independence for the Anglophone
areas and calling federalists “cowards standing on the
fence”. He was joined later in May by Father David Fomanka,
former Catholic education secretary of Mamfe diocese, who advocated
for independence in an open letter to “Southern Cameroonians”.
These three priests all now
live abroad. Their stance undoubtedly reflects the frustrations of a
section of the Anglophone population. But the vast majority of
Anglophone Cameroon’s 350 priests are more cautious, saying little
in public and privately supporting either federalism or effective
decentralisation – not independence.
The second division is over
whether to support a school boycott declared in January 2017 by
Anglophone militants, along with a general strike (they vowed to turn
cities into “ghost towns”). The boycott continued throughout
2019.
Despite the polarisation,
Anglophone and Francophone bishops share some views, and important
Church figures are trying to find middle ground. For example, despite
differences in tone, both Anglophone and Francophone bishops
condemned the heavy military crackdown on civilians since the
beginning of the armed conflict. This is an indication that greater
coherence, and a more constructive role for the Church, are possible.
III. The Church’s
Potential as Mediator
In order to play a more
effective role and help stem an insurrection and counter the risk of
civil war in Anglophone Cameroon, the Church must overcome its
internal divisions or at least find enough common ground to project a
position of neutrality. Several commentators have called upon the
Church to mediate between the warring sides, as it has done in
neighbouring countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and
the Central African Republic. If it is to play that role, the Church
should avoid taking firm positions on the main issues that divide the
protagonists.
Even ahead of direct talks,
the Church likely will have to address the exile of Anglophone
activists. Many want to return home but are understandably frightened
by the government’s continued imprisonment of Anglophone militants.
It could push for some form of amnesty, prisoner releases and
guarantees for returnees, perhaps in exchange for a ceasefire from
the Anglophone armed militias.
"
Without talks and the devolution of power in some form to Anglophone
and other regions, separatist sentiment is very likely to continue
growing. "
The precise agenda of
eventual talks between Anglophone leaders and the government has been
set. Preliminary discussions need to take account of the Anglophones’
deep feelings of alienation. The government cannot continue to
dismiss this sentiment and should be open to discussions of
federalism, even if that is not the only option for addressing
Anglophone concerns (decentralisation that devolves real authority to
regions likely would go a long way in that direction).
The issue of separatism is
trickier. A growing number of militants, tired of what they see as
Yaoundé’s bad faith, are attracted to this option (which
they tend to term “restoration of statehood”). But it remains a
red line for Yaoundé, and supporting secession remains a
treasonable offense. At the same time, separatist movements have
established themselves on the ground and cannot simply be ignored.
Whether the government’s engagement in genuine dialogue with
Anglophone leaders and either meaningful decentralisation or
federalism would suck the oxygen from those movements remains
uncertain. But without talks and the devolution of power in some form
to Anglophone and other regions, separatist sentiment is very likely
to continue growing and the conflict to escalate further with a risk
of mutating into civil war.
IV. Conclusion
Cameroon faces critical
risks going into this electoral year. Boko Haram remains active in
the Far North, instability prevails along the eastern border with the
Central African Republic and popular discontent continues to roil
large cities. But the insurgency in Anglophone areas, and the clumsy
government response, is now the main threat to the country’s
stability. A negotiated solution is vital. The Church, if it can
resolve or keep under wraps its internal divisions and project
neutrality, would be well placed to help bring it about.
International actors should support Church initiatives and encourage
greater unity among the clergy. But the onus is also on the Church
itself to display greater coherence.
Comments